This page is updated as the situation develops. Most recent entries appear first.
EPA's 2024 Third Five-Year Review found the site's soil cleanup goals are not protective, citing a non-cancer hazard index of 30 for a child resident and 2.1 for a composite worker, both above the acceptable limit of 1.1 In July 2026, EPA told the Township it had since evaluated “post-excavation confirmation soil sample data” and found concentrations “much lower” than those same goals, and therefore protective.2
The developer's Soil Management Plan and Environmental Health and Safety Plan, both dated July 10, 2026, claim the site has been remediated three separate times:
The only soil data in either document is the confirmatory sampling from the original excavation, approved by EPA in a letter dated September 28, 2010, nearly fifteen years ago.3
EPA's 2024 finding was about whether the cleanup goals themselves are protective going forward. Fifteen-year-old sampling showing those areas met the old goals at the time doesn't answer that. Either EPA is describing that old data in a misleading way, or it has newer soil data it hasn't shown anyone. We're demanding the exact report title, date, and sampling event ID in writing.
The dust safety math has the same problem.
The developer's own Environmental Health and Safety Plan builds its entire dust safety calculation on the 2006 ROD's contaminant limits, not EPA's current standards. For lithium, EPA's own screening level has dropped 6.5 times since then, from 260 µg/L to 40 µg/L, but the plan's dust safety math still runs on the old, looser number.14 Nobody has redone that math against the standard EPA actually uses today.
On top of that, the calculation assumes every scoop of dirt sits right at the cleanup limit, never above it. We already have documented spots on this site that blow past those limits: lithium at MW-22 running 325 to 555 times acceptable groundwater levels, and hexavalent chromium tested at 169 mg/kg against a 20.5 mg/kg standard.15 The whole calculation only works if the dirt matches the target exactly, and their own numbers say it doesn't always.
Looking at their own table in the EHASP, manganese stands out. Manganese is the exact contaminant EPA's 2024 review pointed to as the main reason the site failed its safety check.16 Hexavalent chromium isn't far behind on that same list. Chromium is a known human carcinogen, and unlike the other chemicals here, health agencies say there's no truly safe amount to breathe at all. Their table doesn't treat it any differently than the others.
Most importantly, none of this is actually being measured. There are three dust monitors planned for the site, but they measure total dust mass in the air, not what's inside that dust.17 If a piece of equipment digs into a small pocket of contaminated soil, something their own report admits exists on this site, none of those monitors can catch it. It would just look like ordinary dust.
Put it all together, and this is a site where the last soil test was roughly fifteen years ago, built around a safety number already known to be outdated for at least one major contaminant, while the public is being told the soil is “remediated.” By the developer's own report, that word doesn't mean what most people would assume it means.
On July 2, Green Fig/Sentinel were instructed to cease operations after work began on site without the required permits.10
Workers were seen on site installing fence posts on the north side of the property without wearing any protective equipment.
A worker installs fencing at the site without visible personal protective equipment beyond a hard hat.
Sentinel Green Fig has publicly posted signage at the site noting that its project has received financial assistance from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under Governor Josh Shapiro.11
If you have views on state tax dollars being used for this project, you can contact Governor Shapiro's office directly.