1

Johnston, Carey

From: Bornstein, Josh - DM <Josh.Bornstein@dm.usda.gov>

Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 7:25 AM

To: Johnston, Carey

Cc: John.D.Martin@HQ.DHS.GOV; Meckes, Doug; Dombrowski, John; Hudock, Andrew; 

Kadish, Rochele

Subject: RE: (U//FOUO) HSPD-9 and NPDES Proposed Rule

Carey, 

I am good with this approach – I think proposing this concept of masking non-offenders is a good 

compromise. The comment period will allow industry to respond with their thoughts. 

Please let me know once the comment period opens. 

Thank you, 

Josh 

Josh Bornstein 

Senior Policy Advisor & Staff Lead (Acting) 

USDA/OHSEC/NSPS 

From: Johnston, Carey [mailto:Johnston.Carey@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 3:43 PM 

To: Bornstein, Josh - DM 

Cc: John.D.Martin@HQ.DHS.GOV; Meckes, Doug; Dombrowski, John; Hudock, Andrew; Kadish, Rochele 

Subject: RE: (U//FOUO) HSPD-9 and NPDES Proposed Rule 

Hello Josh, John, and Doug – 

I hope you are doing well. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. Below is proposed language that we would like 

to include in our forthcoming Federal Register notice, which will open a new public comment period. Also attached is 

the reference document on single event violation data entry. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or questions 

on our proposed approach. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Carey A. Johnston, P.E. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance 

ph: 202-566-1014 

johnston.carey@epa.gov

Possible Federal Register Language 

Stakeholders also raised concerns about EPA posting information on unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs on 

EPA’s public website. The Clean Water Act specifically identifies concentrated animal feeding operations as a 

type of “point source.” See 33 USC 1362(14). The NPDES permit program regulates discharges of pollutants 
2

from point sources. It is important for authorized NPDES programs to report inspection information on all 

facilities (permitted or unpermitted) to EPA, as they do now, so that EPA can know that the state has 

inspected the facility and avoid a possible duplicative EPA inspection. Providing information related to 

inspections of unpermitted facilities (e.g., facility name and location) helps the public better understand the 

robustness of the authorized state NPDES inspection program and the compliance status of nearby CAFOs and 

AFOs. For example, EPA’s ECHO website[1] currently posts data on all permitted and unpermitted facilities 

including: basic facility data (e.g., facility name, street address, latitude and longitude); facility contact (e.g., 

contact name, phone number); and inspection data (e.g., date(s) of inspection, inspection type, lead agency, 

current and past compliance status, and any enforcement actions). 

In order to balance the privacy interests of an unpermitted CAFO and AFO that an authorized state 

NPDES program or EPA has not assessed and found to have violated the Clean Water Act versus the public

interest in disclosure, EPA is considering masking the facility name and address as well as the facility’s contact 

name and phone number on EPA’s website (e.g., ECHO, Envirofacts, Facility Registry System) for these 

facilities. A violation observed during an inspection would likely be entered into as a single event violation 

(SEV) and SEV data are entered by states or EPA Regions into EPA’s data system (ICIS-NPDES). The following 

EPA document, “Single Event Violation Data Entry Guide for ICIS-NPDES,” 18 October 2008, provides guidance 

on the SEV data for state and EPA Regions. See DCN 0147. The following is an example of how EPA could mask 

facility name and location (address and latitude and longitude) as well as facility contact information (contact 

name and phone number) for its website (e.g., ECHO, Envirofacts, Facility Registry System). Each unpermitted 

CAFO and AFO that does not have a Clean Water Act violation as determined by the authorized state NPDES 

program or EPA would have unique number as shown below. 

Facility #1 - Unmasked Information Facility #2 - Masked Information 

Show-Me State Hog Farms 

Location: 300 Ozark Lane, Perryville, MO 63775 

Lat.: 37.830077, Long: -89.750883 

Contact: Grant Wood 

Phone: 999-867-5309 

Inspection(s): 3/14/2010 (no violation identified);

6/22/2014 (discharging without an NPDES permit) 

Unpermitted CAFO/AFO-000001 

Location: Perry County, Missouri 

Lat./Lon.: Redacted from Website 

Contact: Redacted from Website 

Phone: Redacted from Website 

Inspection(s): 2/17/2009 (no violation identified);

5/25/2013 (no violation identified) 

Using the above example the unpermitted CAFO with unmasked information (see Facility #1 in the 

above table) would not have its facility and contact information displayed on EPA’s website until 22 June 2014, 

which is the date the state or EPA Region identified that the facility had a Clean Water Act violation (i.e., 

discharging without an NPDES permit). If an unpermitted CAFO does not have a Clean Water Act violation as 

determined by the authorized state NPDES program or EPA then the facility and contact information would 

not be displayed on EPA’s website (see Facility #2 in the above table). EPA is also considering masking the 

county name if there are only one or two unpermitted CAFOs or AFOs in that county that do not have a Clean 

Water Act violation as determined by the authorized state NPDES program or EPA. 

EPA solicits comment on whether the above table above masks the appropriate data elements of unpermitted 

CAFOs and AFOs that do not have a Clean Water Act violation as determined by the authorized state NPDES 

program or EPA. In particular, EPA solicits comment on particular privacy concerns raised by the proposed 

redacted data elements in the table above, as well as which of those data elements are most important to 

communities seeking to understand the robustness of the authorized state NPDES inspection program and the 

compliance status of nearby CAFOs and AFOs. Additionally, as part of EPA’s decision-making, EPA will consider 

how the presence of facility name and location and facility contact data on other state and Federal agency 

websites affects the privacy expectations of CAFOs and AFOs. 
3

From: Bornstein, Josh - DM [mailto:Josh.Bornstein@dm.usda.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 9:05 AM 

To: Johnston, Carey 

Cc: John.D.Martin@HQ.DHS.GOV; Meckes, Doug 

Subject: (U//FOUO) HSPD-9 and NPDES Proposed Rule 

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Carey, 

Good morning. I sent over a summary of our meeting to our Physical Security Chief (responsible for securing USDA 

facilities and advising others on security and threats) and to our Office of Inspector General (FBI liaison and rep to NJTTF) 

so that they could both take a look at this from different perspectives. 

OIG did not have additional comments. However, our physical security team echoed our concerns that the that public 

release of information with the potential of being aggregated and possibly used strategically by groups to compromise 

assets should be weighed very carefully when talking about transparency of information. The intent of HSPD-9 is to 

defend the agriculture and food system against terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. Given this 

intent, and then looking at the protective security countermeasures at such facilities as slaughterhouses and food 

processing plants, there is little or no security countermeasures in place. So, if a threat group were to target these types 

of facilities, given the information gleaned from publicly provided information, stopping or delaying the attack would be 

difficult. 

My colleagues at DHS also agree that the specific areas of concern include the detailed information about the size and 

locations of permit holders, as well as the owner/operator information that is provided. We also are concerned with the 

types of animals and numbers of animals being released for CAFOs and other animal holding facilities. We understand 

the need for balance between openness and security; we encourage you to work with EPA’s Office of Homeland Security 

to ensure that all safeguards are taken and the entire threat picture is taken into consideration prior to final release of 

information via ECHO. 

Thank you for involving us in this review. 

Sincerely, 

Josh 

Joshua Bornstein, MPA, CEM, CBCP 

CRI Project Manager/National Security Policy Staff 

Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Phone: 202.690.0822 

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any 

unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the 
4

law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, 

please notify the sender and delete the email immediately. 

[1] See http://echo.epa.gov