Remember former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge? He was the governor who signed legislation banning gay marriage in the 1990s[1] and invented the post-9/11 color-coded terror threat level indicator.[2] Ridge also enacted some environmental policy. His Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (Act 2) never saw as much public debate as these others. It does, however, outlive them.
Legislators passed Act 2 in 1995 to help local Pennsylvania governments deal with polluted, abandoned industrial sites after the manufacturing sector collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s. Contaminated land lay vacant, leaching hazardous substances while legal risks associated with these properties discouraged development. Overly strict federal environmental policy, by this line of thinking, inadvertently caused exposure to contaminants by trying to stop contamination.[3]
“Under current law, to clean up an industrial site it takes 20 lawyers and 1 backhoe,” former state Sen. William Stewart said at a General Assembly meeting. Former state Sen. Clarence Bell charmingly claimed that, prior to Act 2, “[I]f you bought some of that land you would be responsible for everything buried under it, including dead Indians [sic].”[4]
Ridge’s law partially broke Pennsylvania out of stricter, pre-existing federal environmental laws. For all but the most severely contaminated properties, developers could negotiate a relaxed, case-by-case definition of harmful chemical exposure with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Developers voluntarily submit a proposal detailing what contamination they intend to test for, how they will do it, and how they plan to remediate the site. DEP ultimately approves or disapproves these plans.
Sometimes, this does not work well.
In 2021, Alliance 51st St LLC of Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania bought parcels near 51st Street and Botanic Avenue in Philadelphia and applied for Act 2 protections, intending to build and lease a warehouse and parking infrastructure at that site. In April 2024, passersby observed yellow-green discolored sludge and foam accumulating on a nearby hiking path and flowing toward the Schuylkill River. DEP soil tests revealed hexavalent chromium above government safety standards.[5]
Chromium, in hexavalent form, poses considerable health risks. It also persists more perniciously in soil and air than other forms of the heavy metal, spreads more easily, and is more costly and difficult to clean.[6] Hexavalent chromium detection tests also generally require expensive, specialized equipment and controlled laboratory conditions. DEP spent $20,573 to have one round of samples taken at 51st and Botanic Avenue tested for this form of the heavy metal.[7]
Facilities in South and Southwest Philadelphia released more than 107,000 pounds of the heavy metal to soil between 1987 and 1994, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxic Release Inventory database.[8] In 1996, EPA fined an adhesives and construction materials manufacturer located less than one mile away from the Alliance site for improperly storing four drums of chromium and methyl ethyl ketone.[9] In 2021, former owners of the Alliance site reported a container spill of petroleum, which required remediative excavation.[10]
On July 22, 2024, DEP published the results of analyses performed on soil samples taken from the hiking trail next to the Alliance property, speciated for hexavalent chromium. Four of 11 trail soil samples exceeded 37 mg/kg, the amount considered safe for residential scenarios. Some samples exceeded 77 mg/kg.[11]
Eric Carlson, vice president of development and construction for Alliance 51st St LLC, described Act 2 like this: “You are not looking for all types of contamination under the sun,” he told attendees of a May 2025 public meeting on this topic. “You are not looking for the unknown.”
While Southwest Philadelphia residents placed at risk by hexavalent chromium contamination may not find much solace in Carlson’s statement, it is a faithful rendering of the official Act 2 gloss.[12] The environmental consultants Alliance hired did not look for the unknown — nor did the law obligate them to do so.
While the specific nature of Act 2 justifies this type of selective site contamination testing, it does deviate from standard industry practice.
Early in 2022, correspondence between consultants hired to bore and sample soil at the Alliance site and DEP detailed “[y]ellow-green fine silty sands,” “soils that were stained yellowish green,” and soil cuttings with “some yellowish staining.”[13]
In the environmental science literature, yellow chrome plumes are widely considered indicators of contaminated chromite ore processing residue (COPR).[14] Civil engineers have historically used COPR, an industrial waste generated from manufacturing chromium compounds, to fill in and level wetlands in order to make them suitable for construction. This material can contain hexavalent chromium. The term “yellowing” is specifically used to describe how hexavalent chromium moves through soil.[15]
In the field, yellow soil discoloration has prompted environmental investigators to suspect, test for, and confirm the presence of hexavalent chromium in many similar situations. Documented cases include “brilliant yellow, soluble chromate crusts,” observed in COPR in Hudson County, New Jersey in the late 1980s.[16] Almost identically to the present case, “yellow, stained soil was noted… and appeared to be associated with chemical storage tanks,” in Hanford, Washington in the 2000s.[17]
Without subpoena power granted by a civil lawsuit or DEP enforcement action, it remains unclear why surveyors at the 51st Street and Botanic Avenue site diverged from established industry convention by not testing for chromium after observing the discolored soil. Arcadis only tested for the contaminant after DEP conducted its own sampling. Lawrence Brunt of Arcadis U.S., principal engineer in charge of the 51st St and Botanic Avenue site surveys, did not respond to questions about why the firm did not initially conduct targeted chromium testing based on the visual indicators.
After DEP confirmed hexavalent chromium contamination at the site, Alliance initially argued that their site was not the source. The developer named an adjacent railroad bridge with flaking paint and a defunct paint and coating products manufacturing company as possible contamination sources.[18]
However, Alliance and DEP have since gravitated toward the notion that the contamination issues originate from historic fill at the 51st and Botanic Ave site.[19] Civil engineers in Philadelphia and elsewhere have used chromite ore processing residue (COPR) to level out wetlands and riverbanks for construction at many sites like 51st Street and Botanic Avenue. Environmental scientists have known that large COPR deposits exist in New Jersey, Ohio, and New York for decades, which have in some cases contained millions of tons of the substance.[20]
At the May 2025 meeting mentioned above, Alliance claimed to have contained the hexavalent chromium contamination at the site.[21] Also at that meeting, Carlson denied that DEP’s Bureau of Clean Water had issued six violations against the developers detailing ongoing on-site contamination issues in late 2024 and 2025. Those violations were issued to Carlson’s email on November 5, 2024,[22] November 13, 2024,[23] November 21, 2024,[24] November 28, 2024,[25] December 10, 2024,[26] and January 8, 2025.[27]
According to an additional inspection filed in October 2025,[28] contaminated soil stockpiles at the site, covered partially with tarps, contained visibly eroded gullies. Filter socks designed to contain site run-off had nearly overflowed. 30 percent of on-site soil, by the inspector’s estimate, remained unstable.
An independent test of fluid discharge from pipes running under the Alliance property into the Schuylkill, analyzed by ALS Environmental in September 2025, found hexavalent chromium levels of 1.4 mg/L. This level exceeds safety standards.[29] Alliance questioned the sample collection and reporting methods.[30]
From a public relations perspective, Philadelphia and state officials have already adequately addressed the contamination issue by forwarding a unified message that residents face minimal risk.[31][32][33]
From a public health perspective, however, voluntary, single-property-specific spot-tests conducted in accordance with Act 2 protocol have not adequately characterized area contamination. The 2022 bore logs did not trigger industry-standard testing. The developers have claimed “no contamination here” with First Amendment protection in the face of severe contraindication from both independent tests and DEP inspectors.
The fox has failed to accurately report henhouse conditions, in other words, yet henhouse protocol remains consistent. This failure is not exclusive to 51st and Botanic Ave. A nearly identical Act 2 protocol misfire occurred this year two miles south of the 51st and Botanic Ave site. Soil boring samples at 3060 S 61st Street documented both elevated chromium levels and yellow soil staining.[34] yet no targeted hexavalent chromium testing followed. DEP ratified that site as compliant in August 2025.[35]
REFERENCES
[1] Alec Walen, “The ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ and Authoritarian Morality,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 5, no. 2 (1997): 619, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol5/iss2/5.
[2] Jacob Shapiro and Dara Cohen, “Color Bind: Lessons from the Failed Homeland Security Advisory System,” International Security 32, no. 2 (2007): 121–154, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30133877.
[3] Michel Daniel, “The CERCLA Paradox and Ohio’s Response to the Brownfield Problem: Senate Bill 221,” University of Toledo Law Review 26 (1995): 435, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/utol26&i=445.
[4] Pennsylvania State Senate, “179th General Assembly, Session of 1995,” Legislative Journal, no. 15 (1995): 195-196, https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/SJ/1995/0/Sj19950301.pdf.
[5] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, “Alliance 51st Street Property & Bartram’s Garden Mile Trail,” 2025, https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dep/about-dep/regional-office-locations/southeast-regional-office/southeast-community-information/bartrams-garden.
[6] Sydney Katz and Harry Salem, “The Toxicology of Chromium with Respect to Its Chemical Speciation: A Review,” Journal of Applied Toxicology 13, no. 3 (1993): 173–183, https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.2550130314.
[7] Eurofins, PA DEP 51st St, (2024), 3, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25136973-euro-fins-quotes/#document/p3/a2597974.
[8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pilot Multi-Media Environmental Health Characterization Study of South and Southwest Philadelphia, Appendices (Washington, DC, 1997), 107, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000W2EL.TXT.
[9] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pilot Multi-Media Environmental Health Characterization Study of South and Southwest Philadelphia, Final Report (Washington, DC, 1997), 81, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000W269.TXT.
[10] Alliance 51st Street LLC, Remedial Action Plan: Pennsylvania’s Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act (2023), 4, https://files.dep.state.pa.us/regionalresources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/ECB%202023.11%20Remedial%20action%20plan%2051st%20Terminal.pdf.
[11] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, First Addendum to the September 19, 2024 Sampling Evaluation Report: Alliance 51st Street/Bartram’s Mile Trail (2024), 6, https://files.dep.state.pa.us/regionalresources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/2024.12.10%20DEP%20Alliance.Bartram%27s%20Trail%20Sampling%20Evaluation%20Addendum%20and%20app.pdf.
[12] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Land Recycling Program Q&A Database (n.d.), https://files.dep.state.pa.us/environmentalcleanupbrownfields/LandRecyclingProgram/LandRecyclingProgramPortalFiles/GuidanceTechTools/2002%20TGM%20FAQs.pdf.
[13] Arcadis, U.S., Inc., Site Characterization Report: Former 51st Street Terminal Facility ID No. 51-10420 Incident No. 56662 1630-1646 South 51st Street (2022), 79-102, https://files.dep.state.pa.us/regionalresources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/ECB%202022.11.%203%20Alliance%201646%2051St%20Phila%20SCR.pdf.
[14] Alan H. Stern, Michael Gochfield, and Paul J. Lioy, “Two decades of exposure assessment studies on chromate production waste in Jersey City, New Jersey—what we have learned about exposure characterization and its value to public health and remediation,” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 23 (2013): 2-12, https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2012.100.
[15] Long Chen, Huilin Yu, Xingrun Wang, Hongtao Zhu, “Re-yellowing of chromium-contaminated soil after reduction-based remediation: Effects and mechanisms of extreme natural conditions,” Science of The Total Environment 923 (2024): 171538, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171538.
[16] Bruce James, “The Challenge of Remediating Chromium-Contaminated Soil,” Environmental Science & Technology 30, no. 6 (1996): 248A, https://doi.org/10.1021/es962269h.
[17] Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Geochemical Characterization of Chromate Contamination in the 100 Area Vadose Zone at the Hanford Site (Richland, WA, 2008): 18, https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-17674.pdf.
[18] Alliance 51st St LLC, Alliance Reply to Public Comments (2024), 4-5, https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/2024.08.29%20Alliance%20Reply%20to%20Public%20Comments%20Final_Redacted.pdf.
[19] Alliance 51st St LLC, Response to Public Comments Received on Remedial Investigation Report and Cleanup Plan for Soils Only (2025), 3, https://www.alliance51ststreet.com/_files/ugd/52c50f_6e6cf07f18934bdebf126b805be994a8.pdf.
[20] Bruce James, See note 16.
[21] Frank Kummer, “Questions remain about chromium leak that has kept Bartram’s Mile Trail shut for nearly a year,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 23, 2025, https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/bartrams-mile-trail-chromium-leak-update-20250523.html.
[22] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Chapter 102 Inspection Report (2024), https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance%2051st%20St%20Insp%20Rep%20110524%20signed%20and%20photos.pdf.
[23] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Chapter 102 Inspection Report (2024), https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance%2051st%20St%20Insp%20Rep%20111324%20signed%20and%20photos.pdf.
[24] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Chapter 102 Inspection Report (2024), https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance%2051st%20St%20Insp%20Rep%20112124%20signed%20and%20photos.pdf.
[25] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Chapter 102 Inspection Report (2024), https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance%2051st%20St%20Insp%20Rep%20112824%20signed%20and%20photos.pdf.
[26] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Chapter 102 Inspection Report (2024), https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance%2051st%20St%20Insp%20Rep%20121024%20signed%20and%20photos.pdf.
[27] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Chapter 102 Inspection Report (2025), https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance%2051st%20St%20Insp%20Rep%20010825%20signed%20and%20photos.pdf.
[28] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Chapter 102 Inspection Report (2025), https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community%20Info/Bartrams_Garden/October%209%202025%20DEP%20Alliance%2051st%20Insp%20Report.pdf.
[29] ALS Global, Certificate of Analysis (2025), 8, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26182211-waterway-cr6-lab-results/.
[30] Alliance 51st St LLC, See note 19.
[31] City of Philadelphia, City of Philadelphia Monitoring Area Near Bartram’s Garden; No Threat to Philadelphia’s Drinking Water (2024), https://www.phila.gov/2024-07-17-city-of-philadelphia-monitoring-area-near-bartrams-garden-no-threat-to-philadelphias-drinking-water/.
[32] Frank Kummer, “Part of Bartram’s Mile Trail remains closed for contaminant testing, but officials call exposure to users ‘low,'” The Philadelphia Inquirer (2025), https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/bartrams-garden-philadelphia-contamination-trail-closed-20240718.html.
[33] Pennsylvania Department of Health, Chromium Exposure Fact Sheet (2024), https://www.bartramsgarden.org/wp-content/uploads/PADOH-Fact-Sheet-Bartrams-Garden-Jul2024.pdf.
[34] Roux, Remedial Investigation Report/Cleanup Plan (2023), 45, 85, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25978050-roux-rir-3060-s-61st-st/?mode=document. On file at Eastwick Library, 2851 Island Ave., Philadelphia.
[35] Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Bulletin 55, no. 33 (August 16, 2025): 96, https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/secure/pabulletin/data/vol55/55-33/55-33.pdf.
What a phenomenal article! I attended the public meeting on May and it was frustrating how dismissive Alliance was to resident’s concerns. The shortfalls of Act 2 can also be seen at the former PES Sunoco oil refinery now owned by hilco/bellwether. As a member of philly thrive, what other groups in philly are calling out contamination? I know Bartram’s garden has not been vocal.