Superfund FY26 – Reading the Tea Leaves

Unlike the previous Trump Administration’s focus on the Superfund Program through the Superfund Task Force, this administration’s focus for the program has been less forthcoming. There is definitely activity across the Superfund program. EPA news releases over the last several months have included significant Superfund actions, such as the March 2026 proposed $668M settlement with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund National Priority List (NPL) site in Washington State. Also in March, EPA released its annual Superfund Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2025, which covers the first eight months of the new Trump Administration. That report includes a dozen metrics used to “highlight the program’s progress in cleaning up sites and supporting their return to beneficial use.”  (Superfund Remedial Annual Accomplishments Metrics Fiscal Year 2025 | US EPA). It should be noted that the presentation is basically the same as fiscal year metrics that have been tracked by EPA for several years.   

What future Superfund program funding will look like is also unclear. Compared to Superfund-related funding over the last five years, less funding has been appropriated to Superfund cleanups in FY 26. However, similar to the last few FYs, EPA is receiving Superfund chemical excise taxes, which were reinstated under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), starting July 1, 2022, and will be active through December 31, 2031. According to EPA’s Budget and Spending Webpage, $744.5 million in Superfund tax receipts were allocated in FY24 and FY25 to conduct CERCLA work as the program transitioned to a combination of base and tax funding (https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget). These taxes will likely play a critical role in funding the program in FY26. For example, FY25-enacted Superfund program funding was about $538M (excluding the Superfund taxes), while according to a summary of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act final-fy26-interior-environment-and-related-agencies-minibus-summary.pdf, FY26 funding for Superfund was $282.75M. Importantly, the Appropriations Action states that Superfund funding “takes into account additional funding from the estimates of fee receipts,”  which would be a similar approach to FY24 and FY25. However, the extent to which excise taxes will supplement the FY26 funding is not completely clear at this time.    

In addition, Superfund’s role in contributing to EPA’s stated mission is not clear. In February 2025, EPA released its “five pillars” which support “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative over the first 100 days of Trump’s new administration and beyond. While one could envision how Superfund might contribute to two of the pillars— Pillar 1: Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American, and Pillar 3: Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership—there have been no formal descriptions or announcements about how Superfund may contribute or is contributing to the five pillars. Based on Superfund program history, interviews with EPA management and recent EPA actions, one can assume priorities will include:

• Superfund actions driven by Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) – While it may be a remnant of a change in Administrations, Superfund-related Settlements with PRPs moved at a slow pace in FY25 and FY26. However, in March 2026, three separate settlements/Consent Decrees were signed, as posted on the US Department of Justice website: https://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees. These included the $668M settlement with PRPs, mentioned earlier, at the Lower Duwamish Waterway site in Washington, and two smaller PRP settlements at the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site in New Jersey and Henry’s Knob Superfund Site in South Carolina. There was also an Amended Consent Decree with the PRP associated with the Ciba-Geigy Superfund Site in Alabama.  
• Increased use of presumptive remedies and broader use of CERCLA removal actions – In an interview with Bloomberg in August 2025, David Fotouhi, EPA’s Deputy Administrator, identified these approaches as a way to expedite Superfund cleanups and create shovel-in-the-ground opportunities. There has been no additional guidance or policy issues related to presumptive remedies and removal actions since the interview. One site could provide an example of how CERCLA removal actions may be used. In November 2025, EPA selected a non-time critical removal action (NTCRA) for a portion of the Lower Neponset River NPL site: ACTION MEMORANDUM – APPROVAL FOR A NON TIME CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION (NTCRA.  
• Continued focus on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – EPA’s decision in September 2025 to move forward with the hazardous substance designations for two PFAS – perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and in May 2025 to move forward with the current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for PFOA and PFOS are both indications that PFAS will be addressed under the Superfund program moving forward. In addition, consistent with the Biden Administration approach, Five-Year Reviews have continued to address PFAS as issues requiring additional Superfund actions, typically through additional environmental investigations. 
• Redevelopment of Superfund and Brownfields sites, including developing data centers on these sites – In March 2026, EPA Region 4 announced it will delete four Superfund sites from the NPL, stating these actions were taken “to revitalize these blighted properties and help turn them into economic engines that will help Power the Great American Comeback.” In January 2026, EPA released the Guidance on the Redevelopment of Superfund and Brownfield Sites as AI Data Centers, Guidance on the Redevelopment of Superfund and Brownfield Sites as AI Data Centers. The guidance was prepared pursuant to Executive Order 14318 (Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure), which promotes the use of Brownfield and Superfund sites for data center development. There has been some political pushback on the use of Brownfield cleanup funds to prioritize data center development, but this is clearly a priority at EPA headquarters.

In conclusion, on-going Superfund investigation and remediation activities are continuing across the country, but the program’s focus and funding are a bit unclear. Expect to see PFAS continue to play a greater role in the Superfund program and further consideration of data center development of Brownfields/Superfund sites.

Contact Rob Young:
Rob.young@alterecho.com
312-345-8966