“As provided in CWA Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a), the objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”

💡 The consent agreement opens by stating the Clean Water Act’s core mission, which Federal Cartridge violated for three years.

“The Facility exceeded the benchmark value for zinc during the third quarter 2020. Respondent failed to implement corrective actions after the benchmark value was exceeded in violation of the 2015 MSGP.”

💡 The company ignored pollution limits from the very first exceedance in 2020, setting the pattern for years of noncompliance.

“Between the third quarter of 2021 and third quarter of 2023, the Facility’s benchmark exceedances, also known as AIM triggering events, required Respondent to immediately review the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and onsite control measures. As additional AIM triggering events occurred, more substantial Best Management Practices (BMPs) needed to be installed to minimize the discharge of zinc in the Facility’s stormwater. Respondent implemented some measures but failed to implement sufficient AIM measures in violation of the 2021 MSGP.”

💡 Even after repeated violations triggered escalating requirements, the company failed to install adequate pollution controls.

“EPA’s Inspectors observed an outfall located at the southwestern corner of the Facility, which is not identified in the SWPPP or in the SWPPP site map. Respondent failed to identify all discharge points in violation of the 2021 MSGP.”

💡 The company concealed at least one discharge point from regulators, preventing proper monitoring and control of all pollution sources.

“EPA’s Inspectors observed trash and debris across the site and evidence of sediment being tracked from a material staging area on the southeastern section of the Facility onto the parking lot near the southern entrance of the Facility. Respondent failed to maintain good housekeeping procedures in violation of the conditions in the 2021 MSGP.”

💡 Inspectors found visible proof that the company neglected basic pollution prevention measures that would prevent contamination of stormwater.

“EPA’s Inspectors observed metal containers, shelving, racks and bins uncovered in a storage area where stormwater drainage could lead offsite via the parking lot and southern entrance of the Facility. EPA’s Inspectors also observed an unmarked metal drum containing an unknown substance at the Facility near the test firing range. Respondent failed to minimize the exposure of material storage areas to stormwater in violation of the 2021 MSGP.”

💡 Industrial materials and unknown chemicals sat exposed to rain, allowing pollutants to wash directly into stormwater flowing to public rivers.

“EPA’s Inspectors found the SWPPP lacked information regarding the sampling procedures and escalated corrective actions. Respondent failed to maintain records and sample documentation in violation of the 2021 MSGP.”

💡 The company’s required pollution prevention plan was so incomplete that inspectors could not verify basic compliance procedures.

“Respondent failed to sample PAHs during the third and fourth quarter of 2021 and the first and second quarter of 2022 in violation of the 2021 MSGP.”

💡 The company skipped required testing for polyaromatic hydrocarbons, chemicals linked to cancer, for four consecutive quarters.

“The Clearwater River contributes perennial and uninterrupted flow to the Snake River. The Snake River is a traditionally navigable water. The Clearwater River is a navigable water under Section 502(7) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).”

💡 The contaminated rivers are major waterways essential for regional ecosystems, salmon habitats, and downstream communities.

“CWA Section 309(g)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(2)(B), authorizes the administrative assessment of Class II civil penalties in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per day for each day during which the violation continues, up to a maximum penalty of $125,000. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 19, the administrative assessment of Class II civil penalties may not exceed $27,378 per day for each day during which the violation continues, up to a maximum penalty of $342,218.”

💡 EPA had authority to impose penalties up to $342,218 but settled for $76,213, less than one quarter of the maximum.

“Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations contained in this Consent Agreement. Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations contained in this Consent Agreement.”

💡 The settlement allows the company to avoid publicly acknowledging three years of documented Clean Water Act violations.

“Respondent is concurrently entering into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the EPA requiring certain compliance actions at the Facility.”

💡 The consent agreement references required compliance actions but provides no public details about what improvements the company must make.

“As required by CWA Section 309(g)(3), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(3), EPA has taken into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, or violations, and, with respect to the violator, ability to pay, any prior history of such violations, the degree of culpability, economic benefit or savings (if any) resulting from the violation, and such other matters as justice may require. After considering all of these factors as they apply to this case, EPA has determined that an appropriate penalty to settle this action is $76,213 (Assessed Penalty).”

💡 EPA claims to have considered all statutory penalty factors but arrived at a tiny fraction of the maximum penalty allowed by law.

“For the purposes of this proceeding, Respondent expressly waives any affirmative defenses and the right to contest the allegations contained in the Consent Agreement and to appeal the Final Order. By signing this Consent Agreement, Respondent waives any rights or defenses that Respondent has or may have for this matter to be resolved in federal court, including but not limited to any right to a jury trial, and waives any right to challenge the lawfulness of the final order accompanying the Consent Agreement.”

💡 The company gave up all rights to challenge the allegations or penalty in court, suggesting the settlement was preferable to the risk of higher penalties at trial.

“The Consent Agreement and this Final Order constitute a settlement by EPA of all claims for civil penalties pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the violations alleged in Part III of the Consent Agreement. In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.31(a), nothing in this Final Order shall affect the right of EPA or the United States to pursue appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief or criminal sanctions for any violations of law. This Final Order does not waive, extinguish, or otherwise affect Respondent’s obligations to comply with all applicable provisions of the CWA and regulations promulgated or permits issued thereunder.”

💡 While EPA retains authority to pursue other violations, this settlement resolves all civil penalty claims for three years of documented violations at a fraction of the maximum penalty.