It’s been decades since the buildings of the White Chemical Corp. in Newark, New Jersey were demolished, the 10,000 drums leaking carcinogenic Trichloroethylene and 1,2-Dichloroethane were removed, and the owner of the company was convicted. But groundwater pollution at and around the site persists: Nearly thirty years after being added to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Superfund cleanup list, residents of nearby neighborhoods are still waiting for full remediation of the contamination.
The Superfund program, originally established in 1980 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, is designed to facilitate the cleanup of hazardous waste sites across the country. Superfund sites are areas heavily contaminated with hazardous substances, posing significant risks to the surrounding environment (human and non-human). Once critical to the Superfund funding scheme was the “polluter pays” tax, an excise tax on companies that used petroleum and hazardous chemicals. In 1995, Congress let the tax expire, pushing most of the funding burden onto taxpayers. As a result, the program’s funding decreased dramatically, and the number of sites waiting for cleanup continued to pile up through 2020.
In 2021, however, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law outlined $3.5 billion in investments for environmental remediation through Superfund and reinstated the “polluter pays” tax, revitalizing hope for Superfund site cleanups in Newark and throughout the rest of the country. In the past few years, the EPA has cleared all 49 previously unfunded sites, started 70 new cleanup projects, and expedited over 100 others—including groundwater remediation at the White Chemical site. However, this reinvestment in the EPA’s Superfund cleanup program is poised to do more than just restore healthy soils and water systems. Through meaningful community engagement, it will promote environmental justice, building trust with historically neglected communities concerned about the potential for gentrification and government malfeasance.
Over the years, underregulated American industrial development has left behind trails of toxic waste around the country, particularly in marginalized communities. According to the EPA, about 73 million Americans live within three miles of a Superfund site. This population is disproportionately composed of low-income individuals and people of color—more than one in four Black and Hispanic Americans live within these three-mile areas. Most Superfund sites are also within a mile of federally funded housing. Newark, for example, is home to just over 300,000 people, of whom 47 percent are Black and 37.2 percent are Hispanic or Latino. (For reference, 13 percent and 19 percent of the US population are Black and Hispanic or Latino, respectively.) Newark is also home to four Superfund sites. The lopsided distribution of toxic waste in marginalized communities is a clear result of systemic racism; Jim Crow laws, discriminatory zoning, and unequal enforcement of federal environmental laws based on race have allowed corporations to build industrial sites in predominantly low-income and minority communities.
Nobody wants a petrochemical factory in their neighborhood, but high-income, white communities have disproportionate power to evade such developments, often opting to use “Not in My Back Yard” organizing tactics or to move away entirely. Research has shown that living near a hazardous site has significant detrimental effects on health. Released pollutants contaminate local air and water supply, leading to a host of long-term health challenges such as cancer, birth defects, and developmental disabilities for nearby communities. Proximity to Superfund sites has also proven to be a negative determinant of life expectancy, especially in neighborhoods that are already socio-demographically disadvantaged. The EPA claims that about 80 percent of sites whose cleanups were supported by federal funding have potential environmental justice concerns. In other words, a significant majority of Superfund sites have a history of environmental injustices, such as a disproportionate burden of environmental risks on marginalized communities.
Despite the clear risks of living near toxic waste sites, mistrust in federal agencies from some marginalized communities has slowed recent Superfund cleanup efforts. One such site is in Westside Atlanta, Georgia, a predominantly Black community where lead contamination, likely from waste from metal foundries that used to operate in the region, runs rampant. EPA officials have experienced unexpected difficulties in accessing residential land to acquire necessary data and remove contaminated soil. Emory University researchers, who have been involved in analyzing the health impacts of the contamination, have spent years trying to convince residents to get themselves and their children tested for lead poisoning. However, much of the pushback from residents is rooted in concerns that the cleanup could speed up gentrification. “No one wants to deal with lead in their soil, but when you live in a disenfranchised community like this, it has been a two-edged sword,” explained Shade’ Jones of the English Avenue community in Westside. Residents are rightfully wary of government remediation programs, especially since the contamination’s impact on their community has been disregarded for so long.
Following a history of racism, displacement, and neglect, the Westside community’s fears are entirely reasonable—however, research connecting hazardous waste site cleanup with increased gentrification is currently limited. One 2011 study of the Superfund program found that community demographics change along income lines, but not racial ones, post-cleanup. In fact, shares of Black and Hispanic residents rose in the examined sites. A 2023 case study of a Florida Superfund site examined the potential for gentrification-caused displacement, calling for increased safeguards to ensure environmental justice post-cleanup. A 2007 report prepared for the EPA found limited evidence of increased real estate prices following cleanups. Although there was some evidence of increased housing density and increased resident incomes, the study found no evidence of changes in the racial demographics of residents. Without more definitive research on the connections between Superfund cleanups and gentrification, it is hard to say whether the relationship is substantial.
Nevertheless, community engagement is key to successfully preventing displacement in Superfund communities and facilitating an efficient cleanup process. Lois Gibbs, former community organizer at Love Canal (an older Superfund site) and current executive director of the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice, explained, “A common factor in the success of Superfund site restoration is active community involvement… It’s important to have a united voice, not just during the construction cleanup phase, but also in coming up with a future land-use plan. What does the community want out of this site? Do they want green space or a low-impact business? People are very creative when they’re asked what they want. These spaces, they are our properties. Seeing them become productive, attractive spaces again protects our sense of community.” Meaningful participation from residents in decision-making is also one of the core principles of environmental justice, as outlined by the 1991 People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit. Funding and research can only do so much; actively including the needs and opinions of community members in Superfund cleanups is critical if the EPA seeks to be a successful proponent of environmental justice.
In its revamped Superfund program, the EPA has recognized not only that community involvement is crucial to an effective Superfund cleanup but also that Superfund sites are often sites of environmental injustice. It now claims that addressing these historical wrongs is central to the Superfund cleanup process and has committed to using meaningful community involvement as an avenue to promote environmental justice. Regarding the Westside, Atlanta site, the agency told InsideClimate News that it is “very sensitive to community concerns about gentrification” and that it understands why the timing of the cleanup has raised questions about its motivations. Since the beginning of the cleanup, the EPA has been building a rapport with the community, stationing a handful of officials in the neighborhood to be available for questions and concerns. Westside Community Involvement Coordinator Ron Tolliver’s job is to collect and report feedback while also educating residents on the agency’s processes and what roles they can play in the cleanup. Tolliver says that this allows both parties to “feel consent when we go and access properties.”
Building community trust is critical for efficient and effective cleanup projects. Community liaisons, like in the Westside project, community advisory boards, and “town hall” discussions are a few potential avenues for building this trust. An effective forum would allow community members and EPA officials to discuss and share concerns openly. With its recent influx of funding, the Superfund program is and will continue to be much more active in remediation efforts. If Superfund continues to stay true to its commitments to environmental justice and meaningful community engagement, these cleanup projects will do much more than restore physical environments: They will right environmental injustices while forging relationships between the government and communities whose environmental and public health concerns have been systemically ignored.