What are Superfund and Brownfield Sites?

Let’s begin with some definitions of what Superfund and Brownfield sites are: a brownfield is property where pollution is known or suspected from past uses—old gas stations, dry cleaners, machine shops, rail yards, small factories. A Superfund site is the more serious category: toxic contamination at a site that is significant enough to trigger a long, federally overseen cleanup. Both can threaten a community’s health if they’re not handled carefully.

As an example of a Superfund site and the chemicals they might contain: In Woburn, Massachusetts, the Wells G&H Superfund site contains two contaminated former municipal drinking-water wells with industrial solvents—including toxics such as trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE)—along with other pollutants in soils and river sediments. These chemicals are linked to cancer and can also harm the liver, kidneys, immune system, and development at certain exposure levels. The EPA’s cleanup there has included pumping and treating contaminated groundwater, excavating and capping polluted soils and sediments, and long-term monitoring to make sure the remedy keeps working and vapors don’t move into buildings.

Decades of research show Superfund and Brownfield sites are disproportionately located near Black, Brown, low-income, and otherwise overburdened neighborhoods. This pattern was documented as far back as a 1983 Government Accountability Office study of southeastern hazardous-waste landfills, reinforced by the United Church of Christ’s landmark report Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States showing race as the strongest predictor of hazardous-waste facility location, and echoed now across several peer-reviewed studies. EPA’s own tallies today show tens of millions of people—disproportionately people of color and households with low incomes—living within three miles of Superfund sites.

Even after a cleanup, many sites keep engineered caps, underground barriers, or land-use restrictions to prevent exposure. In other words, the contamination is managed and contained, not entirely erased.

Cleanups of these sites aren’t quick either. Smaller brownfield projects might move in months, but the full cycle—investigation, planning, cleanup, and monitoring—often takes years. Superfund sites can take much longer, on the timeline of decades, especially when pollution is complex, the site is large, or the responsible parties fight over who pays.

These properties are not blank slates; some might be reused, but the reuse must respect the cleanup. EPA and state regulators evaluate when a cleaned-up property is “ready for reuse” and spell out limits on how it can be used—for example, where digging is allowed, whether buildings can have basements, or whether residential development is off the table.

What happens to these sites after cleanup varies. Some Brownfield sites become light manufacturing, affordable housing, or parks and trails. Superfund can be reused too—wildlife habitat, sports fields, and commercial buildings have all been built on capped areas. The through-line is simple: the design must protect the remedy and keep people safe.

Building AI Data Centers at Superfund and Brownfield sites

Now, let’s add AI data centers to this already complex picture. These are large, round-the-clock buildings packed with servers. They need lots of reliable electricity, often new transmission upgrades, and sometimes significant water for cooling unless they use air-based or other water-saving systems. They also keep fleets of backup generators—usually diesel—for outages and maintenance.

For the underserved communities already facing environmental burdens near these hazardous sites, that can mean new air and noise impacts, more truck traffic, and real questions about whether local water and wastewater systems can handle the load. Even cleaned-up sites are delicate. Poorly planned digging for buildings, pipes, or drains could damage the protective layer potentially letting harmful chemical vapors out.

The administration’s argument is that steering data centers to these sites is a win-win: reuse disturbed land and speed approvals. I agree with part of the premise. Reusing previously developed land is better than paving over a forest or wetland. But speed cannot come at the expense of the health of communities or our environment, nor should it come at the expense of a community’s voice.

The law that dictates cleanup of contaminated lands, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), already sets a floor for participation. At Superfund sites—whether privately or federally owned—the cleanup decision must include public involvement.

Respecting locals’ right to make decisions about their own communities

Communities have the right to see the proposed cleanup plan, attend public meetings about remediation plans, submit comments, and read the agency’s written responses before a final decision is made. Separately, when a federal agency decides what to build on federal land—or when a private project needs a federal approval—environmental review requires public notice and comment. Those processes don’t grant a neighborhood an outright veto, but they do require the government to listen, disclose, and show how public input shaped the outcome. If agencies try to skip or shrink those steps, that’s not “streamlining”—that’s cutting communities out.

Because this is about environmental justice, the bar should be higher than the legal minimum. Many Brownfield and Superfund properties sit in Black, Brown, low-income, and Tribal communities that absorbed the costs of yesterday’s industries and are now being asked to host tomorrow’s. If AI companies want to be part of a community’s future, they should meet communities head-on with proposed projects that reduce cumulative pollutant risk in the  community, protect the site remedy, and deliver concrete local benefits.

None of this works without meaningful community participation. Communities should get plain-language explanations of power, water, air, and noise impacts—not just technical binders. Independent technical help should be funded so neighbors can ask sharp questions and get straight answers. Meetings should be scheduled at accessible times with translation where needed. And if the project’s impacts or design changes, the public process shouldn’t be one-and-done; it should keep pace so people can respond to new facts.

There’s also a needed reality check about who decides what. In an op-ed written by EPA’s Administrator, Lee Zeldin, in The Hill, he wrote “On non-federal property, the community decides what to do with the property, and data centers represent a beneficial long-term prospect.” In practice, local governments make land-use decisions through zoning and permits, informed by community input.

When federal approvals are involved, there’s an added layer of public process. On federally owned land, the federal government is the landowner and decision-maker, and it must follow public-involvement rules during cleanup and environmental review.

In every case, people have a right to be heard, to see the data, and to hold agencies and developers to their promises.

So, is putting AI data centers on Brownfield and Superfund properties where pollution remains contained, not removed, a good idea? That should be up to the communities who will have to live with these data centers, and who have dealt with Superfund and Brownfield sites for years or decades. If the EPA chooses not to listen to communities, then the agency’s work will likely be done poorly and will just concentrate new burdens in the same places that paid the price before. The administration should slow down enough to make sure we get this right. We’ll be watching the EPA’s process closely.

And lastly, we want communities to know: you have a voice in decision-making activities. Use it.

How many degraded lands are there?

Degraded land describes land that has lost some measure of its natural productivity from human activities. This includes land that has supported extractive industry such as abandoned mine lands and orphaned oil and gas wells, and land that pose hazards to people and wildlife due to contamination, such as brownfields and Superfund sites. But how many are there?

Climate, community, and economic benefits

Investment in degraded lands reclamation is an integral part of the climate solution and one with many co-benefits in addition to carbon sequestration. Degraded lands are more vulnerable to erosion, weathering, leaching, decomposition, and dangerous combustion, and therefore release carbon dioxide, methane, and other hazardous gasses. With proper management, these lands have the potential to sequester millions of tons of carbon dioxide annually as new and restored forests, grasslands, shrublands, and soils. In fact, sources say that for every $1 invested in land restoration, anywhere from $7 to $30 dollars can be returned in the form of improved food production, water quality, and carbon sequestration.

These degraded lands also come with a cost that falls heavily on frontline communities and wildlife. Clean air and water are compromised, and the carbon sequestration potential of these degraded lands is often rendered obsolete. Reclaiming and restoring degraded lands is crucial to improve human and ecological health and help tackle climate change. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels while enhancing carbon storage in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other nature-based solutions is essential to effectively address the climate crisis and increase climate stability across the globe.

While investments in degraded land reclamation can help mitigate serious environmental damage, remove costly threats to public health, and store carbon, they also have clear economic benefits. An analysis from the Ohio River Valley Institute found that cleaning up half of the remaining abandoned mine land damage in 10 years (a $1.3 billion per year investment) would support more than 17,000 jobs, both direct (jobs to reclaim the mine lands) and indirect (such as administration jobs).

Key principles for climate-informed reclamation

Reclaiming and restoring degraded land can look different depending on the area and the goal for the reclaimed land. Climate-informed principles can help policymakers, community leaders, local and state government, and natural resource technicians strategize the best process and use of their project sites.

For example, tree planting can help store carbon and can help us meet climate goals when implemented properly and with careful monitoring. Planting native grasses where trees are not native or are difficult to grow can stabilize soils, store carbon, and begin to rebuild organic matter in the soil which supports future biodiversity. Redeveloping brownfields and Superfund sites can save green space, reduce urban sprawl, and aid in smart growth. Additionally, reclamation priorities and plans should always be created with the input of local communities, especially frontline and fenceline communities already coping with high pollution burden and increased climate vulnerability, to ensure that they reap the needed benefits of such an investment. Robust and meaningful community engagement will help ensure reclamation efforts deliver longer-term economic development in some of the most climate-, energy-, and economically-distressed regions.

Following these principles can help ensure degraded lands are reclaimed in a way that benefits the environment and communities long-term. However, every degraded land site has a different set of challenges and environmental and social impacts and requires individual assessment and monitoring as detailed in our new report on the Climate Benefits of Degraded Lands Reclamation and Restoration.

Investments in our Future

Recently, there has been significant federal investment in the reclamation of degraded lands included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This law allocates $21 billion to reclamation efforts with funding falling into four major programs: $11.3 billion for abandoned mine land reclamation; $4.7 billion for orphan oil & gas well plugging, remediation, and restoration; $3.5 billion for Superfund site cleanup; and $1.5 billion for brownfield remediation and revitalization. And the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law in August 2022, reinstates the Superfund tax on oil and petroleum companies, which will provide additional funding to the EPA for Superfund cleanup.

This historic funding brings us one step closer to cleaning up harmful polluted sites and creating opportunities on that land in the form of natural restoration and carbon sequestration, renewable energy, housing, or recreational projects that can positively impact people and wildlife.

The scope of America’s degraded lands problem is vast, but so is the opportunity–to create new and restored forests and grasslands to sequester carbon, revitalize local economies, and remove ongoing threats to people and wildlife.

Learn more

To learn more, read our report recognizing the myriad of environmental and health issues associated with degraded lands and highlighting current information about the climate benefits of reclamation and related investments.

In response, Nixon took a bold step forward for environmental protection by moving to house all environmental regulatory powers of the federal government under one agency’s roof. As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was born fifty years ago on December 2, 1970. Since then, it’s worked to safeguard environmental and human health.

The EPA itself is a tribute to how far our thinking about the environment has come. While previous congressional action created and conserved federal public lands, President Nixon’s formation of the EPA was an acknowledgment by the government that humans are part of nature.

Half a Century of Cleaning Up Water, Air, and Land

In his December 2 speech before Congress, President Nixon declared that clean air, clean water, and environmental protections were part of ‘the birthright of every American.’ He acknowledged that this is a freedom the government can’t deliver if pollutants and toxins are harming both our people and wildlife, alike.  Thankfully, the EPA has put in place many regulations to uphold its promises to the American people to safeguard both human and environmental health in its 50 years of existence.

With the bipartisan passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and Clean Water Act of 1972, Congress entrusted the EPA with the authority to set regulations on air and water pollutants, thus securing baseline environmental health protections.

Other big wins include the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980, also known as “Superfund”). Additionally, the Endangered Species Act (1973), while not primarily enforced by the EPA, intersects with its pesticide work. Altogether, these laws permit the EPA to ensure that our country is free from polluted drinking water, dangerous industrial and chemical waste, abandoned hazardous waste sites, and activities that threaten our most vulnerable wildlife populations. In other words, they’ve made the America we know today possible.

The EPA Under Attack

Unfortunately, President Donald Trump’s administration has worked to undo these essential landmark protections. It’s made over 100 environmental rollbacks—most of which have been done via the EPA—but that hasn’t stopped President Trump or current EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler from greenwashing their rollbacks. Most egregious are their attacks on common-sense regulations such as limits on mercury emissions from power plants and other toxic air pollutants.

While the EPA was founded on sound scientific principle, these attacks on science—and especially the administration’s decision to strip the words “climate change” from governmental websites—demonstrate that the agency is not immune to flawed policymaking.

The EPA’s Next 50 Years

President-elect Joe Biden’s commitment to fighting climate change and supporting policymaking grounded in science creates an opportunity to move forward and restore the EPA’s reputation as one of the most important agencies we have to protect clean air, water, land, wildlife, and people.

Beyond rebuilding the ground lost during the Trump administration, we must continue expanding EPA’s commitment to environmental justice and rectifying policies that have disproportionately burdened communities of color with pollution. Sen. Cory Booker’s proposed Environmental Justice Legacy Pollution Cleanup Act serves as a great example of the kind of legislation we should be pushing forward. After all, the EPA was created to protect not just the environment but the millions of people who call this nation home and those protections must apply to all Americans, not just some.

Looking toward the next 50 years of the EPA, it is vital that we take action to safeguard human and environmental health and ensure a reaffirmed commitment to science-based policies so that both people and wildlife can thrive in a rapidly changing world.

Ensure that wildlife like the great blue heron can thrive by acting today to protect healthy habitat, clean water, and vulnerable wildlife.

Take Action!

A Murky Past…

…And a Cleaner Future

Thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Nyanza site’s pollution was stopped, and the plant closed in 1978. Added to the Superfund cleanup list, the Environmental Protection Agency began the long process of cleaning up the river and surrounding area in the early 1980’s. The buried pollutants were removed and destroyed, and a plan was developed to heal the river. This plan didn’t just look at the Nyanza site, but instead all of the wetlands and even smaller tributaries around the river as well. Thanks to this kind of comprehensive, scientific approach the Sudbury has been slowly nursed back to health.

You can help us with that. Between December 16-18, the EPA is reviewing a sound scientific report of what our upstream wetlands and streams mean for the health of our rivers and bays like the Sudbury.

Take a moment to let your voice be heard, tell the White House to use sound science to protect our nation’s waters!