by John Paul & Molly Davidson-Welling
Section 2: History
2.1 Before Duquense Slag
| - | 2.1.1 Early History |
| - | 2.1.2 Parks Report |
2.2 Duquense Slag
2.3 After Duquense Slag
| - | 2.3.1 1982 Proposal |
| - | 2.3.2 J.J. Gumberg Proposal |
Section 3: Current Site Development
3.1 Current Status
3.2 Stages of Proposed Site Development
| - | 3.2.1 Landscape Remediation |
| - | 3.2.2 Construction Phases |
| - | 3.2.3 Green Space |
3.3 Costs of Proposed Development
3.4 Traffic Study of Area
Section 4: Environmental Concerns
4.1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
4.2 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
4.3 Nine Mile Run Contamination
| - | 4.3.1 Introduction |
| - | 4.3.2 Trunk Sewer Study |
| - | 4.3.3 Current Rehabilitation Efforts |
Section 5: Conclusions
5.1 Future Brownfield Relevance
5.2 John's Insights
5.3 Molly's Insights
This case study was prepared in coordination with a research project at Carnegie Mellon University entitled "Brownfield Development: the Implications for Urban Infrastructure." Brownfields represent an opportunity for industrial, commercial and residential expansion and redevelopment, and are therefore very important to the economic growth and development of cities, counties, and states. The objective of this project is to illustrate a rational, consistent, and systematic approach to decision making related to infrastructure renewal in the context of brownfield redevelopment. Case studies on specific sites are being prepared in order to gain a better understanding of the process and issues involved with the redevelopment of brownfield sites. This case study was prepared by two undergraduate research assistants and focuses on the Nine Mile Run site.
Located in the city of Pittsburgh between the Pittsburgh neighborhood Squirrel Hill and the community of Swisshelm Park, the area is occupied by two large slag heaps divided by Nine Mile Run creek. The site lies along the Monongahela River, and contains a maximum of 134 developable acres on a 238 acre site. Bought by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh in 1995, the property is currently slated to become a new residential neighborhood. This case study contains a detailed history of the site as well as an in depth look at the current development proposals. Additionally, this study examines the environmental aspects of the site, including the Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments and the Nine Mile Run Trunk Sewer study. An on-line version of this study can be accessed at http://www.ce.cmu.edu/Brownfields/sites.
Nine Mile Run started out as a wooded stream valley. Fed by two small tributaries which emerged from underground in Point Breeze and Squirrel Hill, the stream then flowed into the Monongahela River. Nine Mile Run was considered part of the "Old City" of Pittsburgh because of its location on the peninsula between the Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers (City of Pittsburgh, 1916).
When Europeans first ventured into the area, it was inhabited by the Susquehannock and Iroquois Indian Nations. However, as more European settlers arrived, the Indians were pushed further and further West. By 1900, except for two American Indian reservations, all large Pennsylvania land tracts had been acquired from their original Indian owners.
The early residential development of Pittsburgh began near Fort Duquesne in the Point district. Settlements then spread East to Lawrenceville, Oakland and the "Hill District". Soon after, the neighborhoods of Shadyside and East Liberty were built. Nine Mile Run was passed by many settlers coming from Maryland and Virginia by way of the Saline Street Trail (Pittsburgh Press, 1950). However, its isolated location kept interest in the area to a minimum until around 1900 when the community of Squirrel Hill began to develop (City of Pittsburgh, 1916).
Residential settlement began in the 1760's, and in the next century Pittsburgh became a booming center of trade. With three rivers for transportation and rich deposits of coal and natural gas, the area was an excellent choice for manufacturing and industry. By 1900, steel mills, glass factories, and other manufacturing facilities lined the rivers. Small residential communities formed around these facilities to accommodate the growing demand for labor. By 1910, Nine Mile Run was bordered by four different municipalities. The land was part of the City of Pittsburgh, but the natural Nine Mile Run watershed drained the boroughs of Edgewood, Wilkinsburgh and Swissvale as well.
In his report published in 1910, Frederick Law Olmstead wrote, "Perhaps the most striking opportunity noted for a large park is the valley of Nine Mile Run. Its long meadows of varying width would make ideal playfields; the stream, when freed from sewage, will be an attractive and interesting element in the landscape; the wooded slopes on either side give ample opportunity for enjoyment of the forest, for shaded walks and cool resting places" (Olmstead, 1910). Olmstead's vision of a park in the Nine Mile Run valley was expanded a few years later by the Citizens Committee on City Plan.
The Citizens Committee on City Plan was formed in 1916 for the purpose of providing a comprehensive plan for city improvement; and, by 1920, the first section of the General Report was published. The General Report, which evaluated prospective sites and suggested developments for them, was broken into six major categories: Playgrounds, Parks, Transportation, Waterways, Railroads, and Street Plan.
In 1923, the Citizens Committee on City Plan published the Parks Report. The Parks subcommittee had been assigned the task of picking those spots which could best serve the recreational needs of the citizens of the City of Pittsburgh. Though the Citizens Committee did have a budget, it could not implement more than a fraction of its proposals. In many cases, the developments were written with a recommendation that the City pursue the matter. Such was the case with Nine Mile Run.
By 1920, the 250 acre stream valley was surrounded by four growing residential neighborhoods: Edgewood, Swissvale, Wilkinsburg, and Squirrel Hill. The lightly wooded stream valley adjacent to the Frick bequest seemed the perfect place to make a park. Because of its location amidst four different residential neighborhoods, and just across the river from a fifth, the Citizens Committee estimated that a park at Nine Mile Run would be easily accessible to approximately 220,000 people (Citizens Committee, 1923). In their report, the Committee cited Nine Mile Run as the best place in the City of Pittsburgh to build a park for water recreation. They recommended that the City of Pittsburgh, in cooperation with the other surrounding municipalities, buy the property immediately and create a park for public water recreation.
The Committee s report included a description of Nine Mile Run with maps outlining the proposed developments. The report suggested that the stream be blocked to create an artificial lake. There were also plans for a golf course, a country club, a botanical garden, an athletic field, and walking trails that would connect with trails running through Frick Park.
The Citizens Committee on City Plan was not the only group interested in Nine Mile Run. This is evidenced by the Parks Report, which cites the interests that manufacturing and industry had in the land. Nine Mile Run was chosen as a good location for a park because of its borders with several growing neighborhoods. However, its large size and river frontage made it an ideal site for industrial development. Consequently, shortly after the Parks Report was published, the Duquense Slag Company bought the west bank of Nine Mile Run.
The land that Duquense Slag Company bought was then turned into a slag dump. Slag is the industrial by-product formed while smelting metals or ores. The granulated slag deposited on the site was floated down from the Jones & Laughlin Steel Mill by barge and hauled from the steel mill in Rankin by train. In an effort to create more space to dump the slag, Duquense Slag Company also bought up the land on the eastern bank of the stream. By the fifties, a rail spur had been built so that slag could be poured upon heaps already over one hundred feet high.
It wasn't until 1972 that the last slag was dropped at Nine Mile Run (Chester Env, 1995(b)), followed shortly thereafter by debris from the construction of I-376. The landscape no longer resembled a stream valley. Instead, two large slag piles rose sharply from the valley floor to dominate the landscape, and in between them ran the heavily polluted Nine Mile Run stream.
The Department of Planning published its first development proposal for the Nine Mile Run site in August of 1982. The property had been identified as "the only remaining large tract of undeveloped land in the City of Pittsburgh between the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers" (City of Pgh, 1982), and it was determined that only 116 acres were currently available for development. The proposal sought to first identify the factors influencing any residential development in the area and then proposed four different "development options" (City of Pgh, 1982). The first option suggested that 71 acres be used to build a residential area and that the rest be zoned for office and light industrial use. The second option suggested that all of the land be used for residential homes, while the third option suggested that all of the land be allocated for non-residential uses. However, this last option did not seem viable due to the close proximity of part of the land to single-family homes. The fourth option was very similar to the first option, except that more space was allocated for public use and less was set aside for industrial use. However, no private developer came forward at this time and the land remained unchanged.
After the first Nine Mile Run proposal was published, it took another five years before any new suggestions for developing the land emerged. The 1987 proposal was a result of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's interest in extending Route 51 into Pittsburgh. Citing poor existing roadway conditions and insufficient roadway capacity, the Commission proposed seven alternatives to help improve transportation along the Monongahela Valley corridor to the City of Pittsburgh. These proposals ranged from spending $260 million to widen the existing roadways, to building an entirely new split tolled expressway costing over $1 billion (Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 1996).
One proposal considered building a "four-lane limited access toll highway which connects the Mon-Fayette Expressway at the Route 51 interchange in the Jefferson Borough community of Large" (Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 1996). This proposal also included a four-lane limited access toll highway link with the Parkway (I-376) that would run through the Nine Mile Run valley.
The proposed interchange with I-376 prompted several private developers, led by the J.J. Gumberg Company, to consider investing $400 million (City of Pittsburgh, 1987) to create a mega-mall and office center along this proposed Nine Mile Run interchange (see diagram below). The City of Pittsburgh published a report titled Nine-Mile Run Major Development Project in March 1987 gauging the benefits of this project to the city. It was estimated that the proposed 2.5 million square feet of commercial and office building space would create up to 16,000 jobs and provide five million dollars in taxes annually after the first five years (City of Pittsburgh, 1987).
The Nine Mile Run Development Project report was followed by the Nine Mile Run Development Traffic Study (GAI, 1988). Published by J.J. Gumberg Company, its purpose was to determine the adequacy of the existing infrastructure to support the development. The study concluded that the proposed turnpike interchange was essential to full development of the site. It also concluded that surrounding access roads: Browns Hill, Beechwood Boulevard, Forward Avenue, Commercial Street, and the Edgewood-Swissvale interchange should all be widened or realigned.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission considered the Nine Mile Run highway proposal for several years. However, in their 1996 annual report, the Commission wrote that they were no longer considering the interchange with the Parkway. They cited the negative impacts on Frick Park and Nine Mile Run, and the fact that the interchange "would provide only minimal relief to inbound traffic congestion at the Squirrel Hill tunnel" (Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 1996). Without the necessary interchange, development of a mall and office complex at the Nine Mile Run site became impossible.
In June of 1994, it was revealed at a United Jewish Federation function that the City of Pittsburgh had been making plans to develop the Nine Mile Run site into a residential neighborhood (Rotstein, 1994(b)). Encouraged by the success of the nearby Rosemont development, the mayor's office felt that the key to revitalizing the city was to get people to move back into the city, and that this goal could best be accomplished by building new residences. In November of the same year, the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) agreed to purchase a one-year option to buy the site from Standard Lafarge, the company that owns Duquense Slag, for $100,000 (Post Gazette, 1994). The city also agreed to pay $10,000 to Bet-Tech International to obtain the assignment of its option with Standard Lafarge (Gannon, 1994(b)).
In October 1995, shortly before their option to buy ran out, the URA voted to purchase the 238 acre site for $3.8 million (Barnes, 1995). Thereafter, Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments were conducted (see Section 4). When the studies showed no environmental restrictions to site development, Cooper Robertson & Partners, a New York based consulting firm, was hired to study the development options (Rotstein, 1995(a)).
In April 1996, the firm released their Master Plan Report for the site. It detailed a new community consisting of 950 to 1,150 housing units, 114,000 square feet of retail space, an elementary school, and 54 acres of streets and open spaces. Once the initial site regrading and landscape remediation program had been established, the plan consisted of four construction phases over a period of 10 to 15 years (see Appendix B, p. B-1). Each phase would include the construction of 200 to 300 housing units ranging in price from $130,000 to $350,000 (see diagram below).
In June 1996, the URA chose a nine member "Master Development" team for the project, which was headed by Rubinoff Co. and Montgomery & Rust Inc. Other firms involved include Cooper Robertson & Partners; Glunt Development Co. of Turtle Creek; Pennrose, Falbo, Halliday Associates of Pittsburgh, which specialize in rental housing; LaQuatra Bonci & Associates, landscape architects; National City Community Development Corp., an arm of National City Bank; and Pepper Hamilton & Sheetz, a law firm. Housing construction was anticipated to begin in late 1997 at the earliest (Barnes, 1996).
Three separate proposals were looked at when deciding how to remediate the site. All three proposed regrading the steep slopes of the slag heaps in order to stabilize them. Only one proposed culverting the stream for about a third of its length and filling over it. This plan was chosen not only because it made regrading the slopes easier, but because it yielded up to 18% more developable acres. Once the regrading is done, organic topsoil will be added to the top three feet of slag in order to give vegetation a viable mixture to grow in. Slag is normally extremely alkaline and does not retain enough water for plants to germinate.
Nine Mile Run is polluted and also needs remediation (see Section 4.3). A flood plain upstream in Frick Park will be turned into a wetlands in order to biologically filter the stream. Additionally, the slag will be regraded to allow for a widening of the stream bed that will decrease the stream's velocity during storms. This will help to prevent stream bed cutting.
The proposed landscape remediation will occur in two phases. During the first phase of remediation, the stream will be culverted and the slag will be regraded. Also during this phase, the soil over the culvert will be remediated, trees and grass will be planted, and the wetlands upstream of the site will be created. The city has estimated that preparing the site for housing will cost at least $30 million (Rotstein, November 1995(b)). The second remediation phase will occur simultaneously with the first phase of housing construction, and consist of soil remediation and the planting of developable areas. This will continue on for each phase of housing construction.
Once the stream is remediated, the culvert can be built. Portions of Nine Mile Run upstream of Frick Park were culverted in the early 1900 s. The Nine Mile Run Development Plan requires that another 1800 feet of the stream be culverted and then covered by more than one hundred and fifty feet of compacted slag. The Sanitary Trunk Sewer, which runs parallel to the stream, will also be culverted and buried. The recommended culvert is made of two 180-inch arched, AASHTO M36 galvanized corrugated metal pipe and has a 15 square foot cross sectional area. The life expectancy of this pipe is 84 years (ATS, 1995).
A gravity flow sanitary sewer will be installed to serve the site. Since it is not believed that the load increase from the Nine Mile Run development will push the relevant sewer lines to capacity, the site will tie into the existing City of Pittsburgh sewer lines at the Brownshill Road development entrance, at Forward Avenue, and at the 36-inch sewer main on Beechwood Boulevard which connects to ALCOSAN Diversion Chamber M47.
The new development will also connect to the potable water system which serves the City of Pittsburgh. Water will be pumped to the site from the Water Tank on Herron Hill and the Highland Park Reservoir One. To support the planned development, 8-inch and 12-inch diameter ductile iron pipe will be used to supply up to 18 gallons per minute per capita. The potable water system is expected to connect to a 12-inch water main at the intersection of Beechwood Boulevard and Forward Avenue. A second connection to a 12-inch main will occur at the Browns Hill entrance to the development, and the a third connection is expected to exist with the 20-inch feeder main from Highland Park One Reservoir.
The objective of the Master Plan is to create a compact, urban neighborhood that develops character through its design. Critical to this goal are compact housing organization, more public spaces, local facilities, public transit, and a variety of housing types. The preferable mix would be 35% detached single family, 17.5% attached single family, 21.5% townhouse and duplex, and 25% apartment. The hope is to create a community oriented environment with wide streets and tree lined sidewalks, as well as plenty of open spaces and public parks.
The proposed construction of the town will occur in four phases (see table below). Each phase will be a complete environment once constructed. Streets, parks, and utilities will all be built at the same time as the 200 to 300 houses. The first construction phase will develop the Northeast corner of the site near Forward Ave. and Beechwood Blvd. In the second construction phase, housing will be built to the west of the first phase. The third phase will be built across Nine Mile Run on the East side of the site. A bridge connection between the first and third phase sites will also be built then. Finally, the fourth phase will occur at the Southwest corner of the site. A large retail area will be built along Browns Hill Road during third and fourth phases and all construction should be completed in 10 to 15 years.
An important aspect to this development is green space. The reconfigured and replanted area along Nine Mile Run will become a pedestrian and bike path between Frick Park (north of the site) and the Monongahela River. Additionally, a large recreation area including playfields will be constructed on the far northeastern corner of the site next to Frick Park. In the community itself, an open space will be developed within every quarter square mile. A total of 45% of the sites 238 acres will become permanent new natural woodland (Cooper, 1996).
A proposal by the STUDIO for Creative Inquiry of Carnegie Mellon University is also being considered for the development of public space. The group's intention is to take the lead on the design and management of the expansive public space component of the site; and by doing so, to develop a new regional model for the inclusion of relatively new aesthetic and environmental sensibilities in public development. Besides restoring and promoting the natural habitat/ecosystems, the group hopes to identify opportunities to retain and present elements of the post industrial landscape. By identifying opportunities for surrounding communities to become informed about the history, significance, and potential of the area, the goal is to build a community of active "resident" users (STUDIO, 1996).
The Nine Mile Run project will be completed through a joint venture between the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh and Nine Mile Run Associates. Their role will be to remediate and prepare the area for housing builders, who will then construct the proposed site housing. A preliminary budget was prepared by Hammer, Siler, George Associates which estimates the total cost of site development, excluding housing construction costs, to be $62 million. This figure includes direct and indirect costs, as well as sales costs. The budget also includes a breakdown of the Phase I costs, concluding that $36.7 million is needed for the initial development. The Phase I budget will be higher than the budgets for the other phases, since a number of Phase I costs are needed to assure efficiency in the development process.
The URA should be able to sell each plot of land for approximately 20% of the unit sale price. Assuming an average unit sale price of $150,000, land sale revenues would be about $30,000 per unit, or roughly $34.5 million total. With a total budget of $62 million, this would leave a budget deficit of $27.5 million (Hammer, 1996). Although subsidies of this size are not uncommon, it is considered a heavy subsidy for housing designed primarily for middle class families.
There are seven potential sources of funding for the Nine Mile Run project. First, Line Item Appropriations can be made available from the county, state and federal level. City General Obligation Bonds can be issued using the credit of the city, and Categorical Grants are available from both the state and federal government. Additionally, Tax Increment Financing can be used as a source of funding for future phases of the project. Community Development Block Grant Funds and 108 Loans can both be attained from the federal government. Finally, corporations looking for public relations exposure may contribute if the project looks like it's in the public's interest. Two separate financing plans have been proposed: one for the total costs, and one for the Phase I costs only.
In 1996, the Nine Mile Run Development Traffic Condition Analysis was prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. for Cooper Robertson & Partners. The study made use of the average daily traffic (ADT) information gathered in 1990, which was then increased by 1% annually to estimate 1995 ADT levels. Next, the data was analyzed using Highway Capacity Software in order to determine the level of service. Taking into account the buildout of Nine Mile Run, ADT levels were then estimated for the year 2015 using the standard Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (Fifth Edition). The Mon-Fayette Expressway is schedule to be built by 2015 without a Nine Mile Run interchange, but ADT levels were estimated for traffic conditions with and without the expressway.
Assuming the Mon-Fayette Expressway will be in place, the study concluded that traffic volume changes from 1995 would range from an estimated -28% on Beechwood Boulevard by the I-376 ramps, to +15% on Beechwood Boulevard north of Forward Avenue. Without the Expressway, traffic increases on the same stretch of Beechwood Boulevard north of Forward Avenue would increases by an estimated 81%. The study also concluded that Forward Avenue east of Beechwood Boulevard may have to be widened to four lanes to due highly increased ADT levels (Parsons, 1996).
The Nine Mile Run site will be connected to the surrounding communities by six roads: Browns Hill Road at the Old Browns Hill Road intersection, Beechwood Boulevard west of Shady Avenue, Forward Avenue north of the Squirrel Hill Tunnel, and Pocono, Goodman, and Ober Streets in Swisshelm Park (see diagram below). There will also be an bridge inside the site linking the East and West banks of the development. Both the bridge and the high number of connecting roads will help to ease the traffic burden on any one road. With the addition of public transit in and around the site, along with the full development of the Mon-Fayette Expressway, overall traffic increases in the area will be minimal.
In late 1994, Chester Environmental performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Nine Mile Run slag area. Released in January of 1995, the purpose of the study was to identify any recognizable environmental conditions that pose a hazard to developing the property. The study was in compliance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E1527-93).
Findings from a Phase I ESA are normally based upon observations made on the property, interviews with people familiar with the property, and a review of public documents relevant to the property. No samplings of soil, air, or water are performed. For the Nine Mile Run site, a visit was made, and Herb Green, former manager for Duquense Slag Co., was interviewed. Relevant documents included property deeds, aerial maps, plat maps, and previous environmental assessment reports and surveys.
The Phase I ESA Report (Chester Environmental, 1995(b)) revealed the presence of the following: several 55-gallon drums apparently containing a concrete curing compound, miscellaneous materials from non-permitted trash dumping, and an abandoned sewer pipe and maintenance pit. The study also revealed the historical existence of surface depressions, as well as the presence of several fissures in the slag which seemed to be releasing steam at the northeast corner of the site. Although none of these findings presented a definitive environmental hazard, a Phase II ESA was recommended to further analyze the site s environmental conditions.
In 1995, Chester Environmental performed a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Nine Mile Run site. Released in November of 1995, it was conducted in order to further investigate the possible environmental hazards found during the Phase I ESA (see Section 4.1). As part of the Phase II ESA Report (Chester Environmental, 1995(c)), Chester performed a hot gas vent study, a ground water investigation, a maintenance area sampling, and a sewerage status review. They also studied the slag composition and Nine Mile Run water quality. These studies were done by collecting and testing ground, air, and water samples.
The Phase II ESA revealed that the slag was of relatively uniform composition, with no evidence of dangerous industrial wastes present. Steam which had been observed rising from the slag, was attributed to the continuing exothermic mineralization of the slag. No volatile organic compounds were detected. The presence of lead, cadmium, and several semi-volatile constituents was noted in some samples; but, none had levels which required cleanup.
The study identified only two areas for concern. First, a chromium level that exceeded the December 1993 Department of Environmental Resources cleanup standard was detected. However, the standard is based on the long-term ingestion by a child. Since development of the site requires that a soil cover be placed to allow for vegetation, the chromium does not represent an environmental limitation to site development. The second, and major limitation to the site, is the presence of sewerage overflows into Nine Mile Run (see Section 4.3).
The pollution of the stream dates back to the beginning of the twentieth century and the development of the small residential communities which surround it. When the municipalities of Edgewood, Swissvale, and Wilkinsburg formed, each created an independent sewer system to carry sewage into the Monongahela river. Each of these systems had pipes which followed the Nine Mile Run stream bed and discharged excess water directly into Nine Mile Run.
During the 1930's, the three communities tied into the ALCOSAN sewer system serving the City of Pittsburgh. This combined sewer was built to carry both raw sewage and waste water from a 4,468-acre drainage basin down to the Monongahela River. The sewer system was designed so that if the pipes were filled to capacity during rainstorms, excess water and sewage could be discharged by means of overflow chambers into Nine Mile Run (Engineers Society, 1930). However, as the years passed the pipes decayed and Nine Mile Run became heavily polluted.
The deteriorating pipes have been a topic of discussion for nearly twenty years. When the sewer lines leak or overflow, raw sewage gets dumped into the creek. The average coliform count per 100 ml of water was measured to be 60,000 in 1995 (Chester Environmental, 1995(c)) , while the fecal coliform count rose as high as 260,000 in some places (Chester Environmental, 1995(a)). The EPA standard for clean water is 400 coliforms per 100 ml, and only 200 fecal coliforms per 100 ml (Amshel, 1995).
Any effort to remediate the problem has been short term at best. The Allegheny County Health Department has written several notices to the municipalities bordering Nine Mile Run, recommending that a joint commission be formed to oversee the stream. In 1986 and 1987, Edgewood spent $360,000 to reline all its sanitary sewer lines, but cooperation towards a long term solution between the four municipalities with sewer lines in the watershed has been almost nonexistent (Place, 1993).
In 1995, during the Phase II assessment of the site, the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) authorized Chester Environmental to prepare the Nine Mile Run Trunk Sewer Study (Chester Environmental, 1995(a)). The study was done in order to better understand the specific physical problems of the sewer system. It revealed that portions of the Nine Mile Run trunk sewer are in poor condition and are in need of major repair.
The study consisted of three main parts: manhole inspection, flow monitoring, and internal inspection. The purpose of inspecting the manholes was to identify possible infiltration and inflow sources. A total of 26 manholes were inspected, revealing structures ranging from fair to poor conditions. Heavy root intrusion and leaking were both noted as problems that needed rehabilitation.
Flow monitoring was done to analyze whether or not the sewer pipes were capable of handling the daily flow amounts. Hourly flow data was collected at five different sites over a three month period, revealing minimum and maximum daily flows, as well as monthly averages. The results showed that a significant amount of storm water enters the sewer system during wet weather, resulting in a large increase in daily maximum flow rates. At times, these flow rates can exceed capacity resulting in manhole overflows. The study recognized the need for the removal of this excess flow in order to lesson the occurrence of discharge into the stream. However, hydraulic modeling did show that the sewer is capable of handling flow during normal dry weather.
Finally, the study included an internal inspection of the sewer lines. This was accomplished through the use of a remote controlled video camera mounted on a floating platform. The pictures showed the pipes to be in fair to poor condition. Many of the terra cotta tiles used to line the inside of the sewer are cracked and loose. A high level of debris accumulation was also noted. Additionally, longitudinal cracks were observed and several isolated areas of the pipe line are notably deteriorating. The study projected the cost of rehabilitating the Nine Mile Run sewer system to be $2.6 million. This estimate includes the cost of replacing ten segments of the pipe as well as the design engineering costs. But, this cost does not include any other repairs which may prove to be needed.
At the current time, no effort to repair the sewers or remediate the stream is being made. In April 1995, Wilkinsburg, Edgewood, and Swissvale were asked to develop a map of their sewer systems, so that one large map could be drawn. This map would be the first step in finding out what repairs need to be made to the watershed sewers (Haynes, 1995). Unfortunately, this first step has not led to others. As part of their land rehabilitation efforts, the Urban Redevelopment Authority may opt to construct wetlands on a flood plain area upstream of the Nine Mile Run site. Wetlands could biologically filter much of the waste before it flows downstream (Cooper, 1996).
Unfortunately, repairing the trunk sewer and constructing wetlands represents only the first step in remediating the stream. Even if the pipes do not leak, they are still not capable of handling the flows after a rainstorm. The pipes design makes it inevitable that sewage will still overflow into the stream. When Nine Mile Run first emerges from its culvert above Frick Park, its water is already polluted. This suggests that there are hidden sources of pollution which the Nine Mile Run Trunk Sewer Study does not address. The stream that empties into Nine Mile Run in Frick Park is also polluted from unknown sources, making full remediation of Nine Mile Run difficult at best. Without full cooperation from the municipalities in the watershed, successful remediation seems unlikely.
However, with the development of Nine Mile Run into a residential area, the municipalities which pollute the stream may be forced by law to clean it up. Under Pennsylvania Law, any municipality discharging sewage into waters of the Commonwealth must stop polluting them if "such discharge of sewage is or may become inimical or injurious to the public health, animal or aquatic life, or to the use of the water for domestic or industrial comsumption or recreation..." (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1937). This law is not applicable as long as Nine Mile Run is a slag heap. However, once the land is developed for residential use, the polluted stream poses a health hazard to the surrounding community.
There are generally a number of challenges to cleanup and reuse of brownfield sites. One of the most significant of these is the uncertain liability associated with federal and state environmental laws. These laws often overlap creating confusion and serving as a deterrent for site development. When developing a residential area, the environmental cleanup standards become stricter and liability increases (see table below). Even with the absence of contamination, the stigma associated with an unattractive, abandoned or underutilized site remains. Development of a brownfield site into a residential area is rare, which makes Nine Mile Run a special case.
The successful development of Nine Mile Run into a new community will not only serve as an example to other residential brownfield projects, but will also help encourage the redevelopment of Pittsburgh. Like many cities that have gone through deindustrialization, Pittsburgh has a surplus of brownfield sites, particularly along its rivers. The development of these sites is extremely important to the vitality of the city since they create new jobs and tax revenue. Since many of these brownfields are near residential developments, public opinion is critical to the success of a site. By creating a new community, with an appropriate balance of public lands and private development, Nine Mile Run will help to heighten public awareness to the advantages of brownfield development. In the long run, the success of the Nine Mile Run development may encourage the City of Pittsburgh to remediate other brownfield sites.
The fact that this is the first extensive research project I have worked on has led me to come to many conclusions and insights, not only about Brownfields, but about research in general. Although none of my observations are necessarily valid in all cases, I feel that they have some merit based on the research I've conducted. First of all, with respect to brownfield sites, I think that it should be noted that just because a plan looks good on paper does not mean it is going to succeed. As can be seen from the history of Nine Mile Run, two promising plans have come and gone. The first in 1982 bore a striking resemblance to the current proposal. But in 1982, the City apparently didn't feel that the site would be important to urban redevelopment. Perhaps the current success of the nearby Rosemont development makes the proposed Nine Mile Run plan look much more promising and feasible. It seems then, that a successful development depends not only on how good a plan is, but whether or not the time is right to develop such a plan. Economic, social, and political factors can all influence this.
The 1987 J.J. Gumberg proposal supports this conclusion as well. The plan offered to create 16,000 local jobs, but at least two external factors prevented the $400 million plan from fruition. The first was the dependence of the project on the proposed Mon-Fayette Expressway. For the development to be successful, this highway had to be built. But a second factor helped to prevent this: citizens of Squirrel Hill were unhappy about the construction of a second major highway running through their area. The fact that there was already one major road in the area helped to prevent the Gumberg plan from being developed. Therefore, the infrastructure needed for the development of a particular brownfield site should be looked at closely, particularly in residential areas which may be affected by increased traffic and noise.
Another observation: development moves slowly. I believe that this has to do with the bureaucracy inherent to the system. The URA purchased a one-year option to buy the Nine Mile Run site in 1994, but didn't act on it until almost a year later. Why? Did it really take the URA an entire year to decide that the purchase was a wise investment? I doubt it. More than likely, there were too many people involved in making the important decisions. One person sends a memo to another person which doesn't get responded to for at least a week. This memo spawns another memo to another person, which warrants another, and the cycle continues. Observing the schedules of the professors I'm working with, its obvious that the people who make the decisions don't have similar schedules, and it may take weeks or months to schedule a meeting with all of them. The fact that brownfield development involves many people from different organizations will naturally make the process move slowly.
My research has led me to form opinions about the research process itself, particularly research involving newspapers. I believe that newspapers are a great way to get general information about the topic being researched and would recommend them as a good starting point. But, I don't think they should ever be taken as 100% accurate. For instance, I've seen the nearby community of Duck Hollow referred to as Duck Hill and Puck Hollow on more than one occasion. This indicates to me a lack of involvement with the story on the part of the writer. The articles I've read about the area also seem to be slanted at times. No writer ever seems to have anything good to say about the stream or the site, probably because referring to the place as a slag dump with a polluted stream will make it easier to get the public in support of development. But I've been there, and I know many people who have been there, and I know that none of them view it as just a slag dump. Proper research, therefore, requires information from people involved with the topic, not just reporting on it.
Most of the information that was extremely helpful came from making contacts with people who have involvement with the site, and I believe this is critical to the research process. Talking with people will often lead to connections with other people, and their information is more complete and accurate then second hand information that would come from a newspaper. One person to always talk to is the librarian. They are an indispensable resource that should be used whenever research is being done. On a personal note, I personally have gained a lot from doing this case study. I'm no longer intimidated by microfilm and microfiche, and I have finally learned to decipher html. I believe the most important thing I've gotten from the project, however, is an appreciation for the complexity of research. I've learned about Nine Mile Run from many different people and sources, and very few looked at the site in the same way. I don't think someone can fully understand their research topic until they see it through the eyes of the many people involved in it. Only then can they write a well informed research paper.
In the last ten years, Pittsburgh has been a place of change. Many of the mammoth steel factories that lined the rivers, belching black soot and toxic chemicals into the air and water, are no longer standing. Here and there, old industrial properties are being bought up, remediated and then reused. This project seeks to understand the mechanisms and implications of brownfield recycling.
Recycling is both an old concept and a new one. Land and metal have been recovered and reused for a long time. Paper products and plastics, however, have only been recycled for a decade or two. Brownfield recycling remains a problem because of the environmental or perceived environmental degradation associated with the industrial processes of the last century. This being the case, many new industrial and manufacturing plants are built on greenfields. The problems associated with this are urban sprawl, urban decay, environmental degradation, and general waste.
The industrial processes of the last century have left behind millions of acres of industrial wasteland, only a few of which are reusable without remediation. But that is not to say that people should not consider reusing brownfields. Nine Mile Run is an excellent example of this. Currently, Nine Mile Run is an urban desert. The stream is dead, the animal and plant life having been destroyed by pollution almost a century ago. The two gray mountains of slag, for all of their primitive beauty, are an eye-sore in the urban landscape. However, fifteen years from now, it will be a new, upscale residential neighborhood inside the City of Pittsburgh.
For the City of Pittsburgh, the impact of building over one thousand homes is significant. As middle and upper class workers flee the cities for suburbia, the tax base at the urban core diminishes annually. The mass influx of middle class families, and their tax dollars, could provide the City of Pittsburgh with money to spend on public schools, local roads, and other public works projects. Nine Mile Run is among the minority; most brownfields are not suitable for redevelopment as residential neighborhoods. However, the majority have good location and access to a local work force. Those are incentives for companies to come in and buy the land, and the jobs and tax revenue they bring with them, make it lucrative for cities, counties and even states to offer financial aid packages that encourage remediation attempts.
Brownfield remediation isn't just about tax dollars, though. It is also about environmental concerns and urban renewal. Many of the industrial sites that have now been abandoned are extremely polluted. The lack of concern for the environment has led to hundreds of sites with polluted soil and ground water. One of the problems of pollution is that over a period of time, the contamination tends to spread. Small problems now could become large problems later.
Many people already consider Pittsburgh a dying city. The core is being abandoned; as old businesses move out or fail, they are not replaced. Brownfield remediation and reuse provides incentives for people to stay in the urban core. Without reuse of urban land, the old cities will become dead spots on the map, while new cities are built only to have the same thing happen later. Brownfield redevelopment stimulates the urban core, forces remediation of degradation and promotes reuse rather than waste. The implications of brownfield redevelopment are both tremendous and tremendously positive.
| (1) | Barnes, Tom "City buying slag pile," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. B, p.1, October 13, 1995. |
| (2) | Barnes, Tom "Team chosen to develop neighborhood on slag site," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. C, p.3, June 14, 1996. |
| (3) | Gannon, Joyce "Closing the city's new-home gap," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, June 12, 1994. |
| (4) | Gannon, Joyce "URA to seek option on slag heap site," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. D, p.9, November 15, 1994. |
| (5) | Haynes, Monica L., "County asks mapping on nine mile sewer lines," Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. E, p.2, April 27, 1995. |
| (6) | Place, M.J., "4-municipality authority bid gets cool reception," Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. E, p. 12, October 7, 1993. |
| (7) | Pro, Johnna A. "Opulence atop steel's debris" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. B, p.1, June 3, 1994. |
| (8) | Ralston, Kirk Stewart "Who needs Nine Mile Run?" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. A, p.7, June 10, 1995. |
| (9) | Rotstein, Gary "City eyes slag heap as neighborhood," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. A, p.1, June 2, 1994(a). |
| (10) | Rotstein, Gary "Housing planned for slag heaps," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, June 13, 1994(b). |
| (11) | Rotstein, Gary "A heap of housing may rise from slag site," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. B, p.3, October2, 1995(a). |
| (12) | Rotstein, Gary "More detail on city's plan for slag heap," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, November 29, 1995(b). |
| (13) | Rotstein, Gary "Planners share idea for turning slag heaps into homes," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. B, p.3, April 10, 1996. |
| (14) | Spatter, Sam "Slag site could be mall with 16,000 jobs," Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. A, p.1, March 12, 1989. |
| (15) | Staff Writer "Authority agrees to development site option," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. B, p.5, November 17, 1994. |
| (16) | Staff Writer "New hope for slag heap," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, Sec. B, p.3, May 14, 1996. |
| (17) | Unknown, Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1950. |
| (1) | Ackerman, Jerry, "Brownfields: An Environmentally Responisble and Economically Viable Perspective," Atlantic Environmental Services, Inc., August 1995. |
| (2) | Amshel, Bruce,"Analysis of the Nine Mile Run Watershed,"May 1995. |
| (3) | Anaropogon Associates, Ltd., "Nine Mile Run Environmental Issues," January 5, 1996. |
| (4) | Advanced Technology Systems (ATS), "Site Engineering Report," September 15, 1995. |
| (5) | Chester Environmental, "Nine Mile Run Trunk Sewer Study," November 1995. |
| (6) | Chester Environmental, "Phase I Environmental Assessment Report," January 1995. |
| (7) | Chester Environmental, "Phase II Environmental Assessment Report," November 1995. |
| (8) | Citizens Committee on City Planning, "Parks Report," 1923. |
| (9) | City of Pittsburgh, "City of Pittsburgh and its Public Works," Department of Public Works, June 1916. |
| (10) | City of Pittsburgh, "Nine Mile Run Development Proposal," Department of Planning, August 1982. |
| (11) | City of Pittsburgh, "Nine Mile Run Major Development Project," Department of Planning, March 1987. |
| (12) | Cooper Robertson & Partners, "Master Plan Report," April 8, 1996. |
| (13) | Engineers Society of Western Pennsylbania, "Pittsburgh 1880-1930," November 1930. |
| (14) | GAI Consultants, Inc., "Nine Mile Run Development Traffic Study," June 1988. |
| (15) | General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,"Pennsylvania Law," 1937. |
| (16) | Getches, David H., "Water Law in a Nutshell, Second Edition," 1990. |
| (17) | Hammer, Siler, George Associates, "Nine Mile Run Project Financing Plan," 1996. |
| (18) | Monessen, "Feasibility Study Nine Mile Run Relocation," Geo-Mechanics, Inc.; March 18, 1974. |
| (19) | Office of Technology Assessment, "State of the States on Brownfields: Programs for Cleanup and Reuse of Contaminated Sites," Congress of the United States, June 1995. |
| (20) | Olmstead, Frederick Law, "Olmstead Report," 1910. |
| (21) | Parsons Brinker Quade and Douglas, Inc., "Nine Mile Run Development Traffic Condition Analysis," March 27, 1996. |
| (22) | Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, "Annual Report," 1996. |
| (23) | STUDIO for Creative Inquiry, "A Partnership Plan for Public Space Development," May, 1996. |
| (24) | USEPA, "Exposure Factors Handbook," Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, July 1989(a). |
| (25) | USEPA, "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final," December 1989(b). |
| (26) | USEPA, "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals), Interim," December 1991. |
| (27) | USEPA, "Soil Screening Guidance," OSWER, December 1994. |
| (28) | Walkinshaw, Lewis Clark, "Annals of Southwestern Pennsylvania," Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., New York; 1939. |
| (1) | "Duck Hollow's True History", Carnegie Mellon Railroad Club Home Page, http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu:8001/usr/cmrr/Models/duckhollow.html, June 14, 1996. |
| (2) | "Brownfield Development: the Implications for Urban Infrastructure,", Carnegie Mellon University, http://www.ce.cmu.edu/Brownfields/, July 1, 1996. |
| (1) | Cooper Robertson & Partners, Master Plan Aerial Map, April 8, 1996 |
| (2) | Livolai, Chuck, Pittsburgh Press, March 12, 1989. |
| (3) | Marshall Penn-York Co., Inc., "Visual Encyclopedia of Pittsburgh & Allegheny County, PA," Syracuse, New York. |
| (4) | Parks Report, City fo Pittsburgh, 1923. |
| (5) | Southwestern Regional Planning Commission, Aerial Photograph, Pitttsburgh East SE, Pittsburgh, PA, Fall-1990. |
| (6) | U.S. Geological Survey, Pittsburgh East Quadrangle, Pennsylvania-Allegheny County, 7.5 Minute Series, Washington D.C., 1969. |
Special thanks to Tim Collins, Bob Bingham, Marge Myers and all at the STUDIO for Creative Inquiry, Mark Knezevich at the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, Carla Sandy and the Squirrel Hill Urban Coalition, J.P. Barton, Joel Tarr and Jennifer Bannister.