EPA v. HORTON IRON AND METAL SUPERFUND SITE (HORTON IRON AND METAL COMPANY)

Case summary

JANUARY 4, 2022: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - This Settlement Agreement concerns the Horton Iron and Metal Superfund Site (?Site?) located in Wilmington, North Carolina. EPA alleges that the Site is a facility as defined by Section 101(9) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ? 9601(9). In response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from the Site, EPA undertook response actions at the Site pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ? 9604, and will undertake additional response actions in the future. Parties unrelated to Settling Party used the Site for fertilizer and insecticide operations from at least 1911 to 1959. Settling Party has owned and used the Site for its scrap metal and shipbreaking business since at least 1959.The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (now the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality) conducted a Site investigation in 2003 and discovered, among other things, arsenic and lead in the soils. EPA conducted a removal assessment at the Site in 2007 and an expanded investigation at the Site in 2009. These investigations detected numerous hazardous substances, including arsenic, lead, and cadmium, in soil and groundwater at the Site. The Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 16, 2011. Settling Party and parties not subject to this Agreement conducted a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) at the Site between 2013 and 2018, which identified lead, arsenic, cadmium, PCBs, SVOCs, and other hazardous substances, as defined under Section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ? 9601(14), in the soil, groundwater, and sediment. EPA selected a remedy for the Site in a Record of Decision (ROD) issued on September 6, 2018. The ROD provides for, among other things, excavation of soil, implementation of alkaline-activated persulfate to treat groundwater, and long-term monitoring. In performing response action at the Site, EPA has incurred response costs and will incur additional response costs in the future. EPA alleges that Settling Party is a responsible party pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ? 9607(a), and is jointly and severally liable for response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Site. EPA has reviewed the Financial Information and Insurance Information submitted by Settling Party to determine whether Settling Party is financially able to pay response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Site. Based upon this Financial Information and Insurance Information, EPA has determined that Settling Party has limited financial ability to pay for response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Site. EPA and Settling Party recognize that this Settlement Agreement has been negotiated in good faith and that this Settlement Agreement is entered into without the admission or adjudication of any issue of fact or law. The actions undertaken by Settling Party in accordance with this Settlement Agreement do not constitute an admission of any liability. Settling Party does not admit, and retains the right to controvert in any subsequent proceedings other than proceedings to implement or enforce this Settlement Agreement, the validity of the facts or allegations contained in this Section.

Defendants (1)

• HORTON IRON AND METAL COMPANYNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• HORTON IRON AND METAL

  2216 US HIGHWAY 421 N, WILMINGTON, NC, 28401

  Registry ID: 110013800093

Statutes cited

• CERCLA 107A — Cost Recovery

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• HORTON IRON AND METAL SUPERFUND SITE (HORTON IRON AND METAL COMPANY)entered 2022-01-04

  Primary law: CERCLA

Timeline (2 milestones)

• 2022-01-04Final Order Issued
• 2022-01-18Enforcement Action Data Entered