Remember former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge? He was the guy who banned 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, but it does, however, outlive them.
Legislators passed Act 2 in 1995 to help local Pennsylvania governments deal with polluted, abandoned industrial sites left behind by the collapse of the manufacturing sector 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 way 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.”[4]
Ridge’s law partially broke Pennsylvania out of the stricter 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 Pa. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Developers, in accordance with the protocol, investigate on-site contamination on a voluntary basis, and write up their own custom plan for dealing with it. They create a proposal that details what they intend to test for, and how. DEP ultimately approves or disapproves the plan.
This, sometimes, 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. They intend 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.[7]
Alliance’s environmental consultants did not initially test for chromium at the site despite extensive documented evidence that this metal is present in dangerous quantities in the southwest Philadelphia industrial corridor surrounding the Alliance site, and that prior contamination events had occurred at the site.
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 petroleum spill. This required remediative excavation.[10]
On July 22, 2024, DEP published results of 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.” This 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 deviated wildly 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]
Yellow chrome plumes are considered a “hallmark of COPR contamination” in environmental science.[14] The term “yellowing” is used to describe how hexavalent chromium moves through soil.[15]
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 the subpoena power that a citizen lawsuit or a DEP enforcement action would lend, it remains unclear why surveyors at the 51st Street and Botanic Avenue site diverged from established industry convention in this way. 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 discolored soil did not prompt more targeted chromium testing.
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]
Alliance and DEP have since gravitated toward a third explanation: historic fill.[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. This material frequently contains hexavalent chromium. 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]
Alliance also claimed to have contained the contamination at the site in May 2025.[21] At the May 2025 meeting cited above, 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, continuing to exceed safety standards.[29] Alliance questioned the sample collection and reporting methodology.[30]
At least one similar Act 2 site survey in the region has also produced evidence of potential hexavalent chromium and has similarly gone untested for this specific type of contamination. Soil boring samples at 3060 S 61st Street contained high soil chromium and yellow soil staining.[31] DEP ratified the 61st Street site as compliant with site-specific remediation standards in August 2025.[32]
[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, 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, 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, City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” 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), 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), https://doi.org/10.1021/es962269h.
[17] Pacific Northwest Laboratories, “Geochemical Characterization of Chromate Contamination in the 100 Area Vadose Zone at the Hanford Site,” 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, https://www.alliance51ststreet.com/_files/ugd/52c50f_6e6cf07f18934bdebf126b805be994a8.pdf.
[20] James, “The Challenge of Remediating Chromium-Contaminated Soil,”
[21] Frank Kummer, “Questions remain about chromium leak that has kept Bartram’s Mile Trail shut for nearly a year,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 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 Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance 51st St Insp Rep 111324 signed and photos.pdf.
[24] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, “CHAPTER 102 INSPECTION REPORT,” 2024, https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance 51st St Insp Rep 112124 signed and photos.pdf.
[25] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, “CHAPTER 102 INSPECTION REPORT,” 2024, https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance 51st St Insp Rep 112824 signed and photos.pdf.
[26] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, “CHAPTER 102 INSPECTION REPORT,” 2024, https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance 51st St Insp Rep 121024 signed and photos.pdf.
[27] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, “CHAPTER 102 INSPECTION REPORT,” 2025, https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community Info/Bartrams_Garden/Alliance 51st St Insp Rep 010825 signed and photos.pdf.
[28] Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, “CHAPTER 102 INSPECTION REPORT,” 2025, https://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SERO/SEROPortalFiles/Community Info/Bartrams_Garden/October 9 2025 DEP Alliance 51st Insp Report.pdf.
[29] ALS Global, “Certificate of Analysis,” 2025, 8, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26182211-waterway-cr6-lab-results/.
[30] Alliance 51st St LLC, “Response to Public Comments Received on Remedial Investigation Report and Cleanup Plan for Soils Only,” 2025, 4, https://www.alliance51ststreet.com/_files/ugd/52c50f_6e6cf07f18934bdebf126b805be994a8.pdf.
[31] 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.
[32] 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.