Case No. VFA-0381, 27 DOE ¶ 80,119

March 12, 1998

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: Masako Matsuzaki

Date of Filing: February 11, 1998

Case Number: VFA-0381

On February 11, 1998, Masako Matsuzaki (Matsuzaki) filed an Appeal from a determination issued to her in response to a request for documents she submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the Department of Energy (DOE) in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1008. The DOE’s Richland Operations Office (DOE/RL) issued the determination on December 31, 1997. This Appeal, if granted, would require that DOE/RL perform another search for responsive documents.

I. Background

Matsuzaki states that she is a retired Army nurse who was stationed at the Hanford site in Richland, Washington between 1959 and 1961. She alleges that she was exposed to radiation at Hanford, and is suffering severe medical problems today as a result of this exposure. On September 30, 1997, Matsuzaki filed a request with DOE/RL for proof that she was stationed at the Hanford Site with the U.S. Army, and that while stationed at Hanford she was exposed to radiation. Letter from Matsuzaki to DOE/RL (September 30, 1997). DOE/RL responded that all records pertaining to military personnel stationed at Hanford were sent to Fort Lewis, Washington. Letter from DOE/RL to Matsuzaki (December 31, 1997) (Determination Letter). Unfortunately, a fire in the 1970s destroyed many of the military records stored at Fort Lewis, including retired military personnel identification. Nonetheless, DOE/RL conducted a search of its three main Privacy Act systems of records (employment, medical and radiation exposure) and found no records pertaining to Matsuzaki. Determination Letter. On February 11, 1998, Matsuzaki filed this Appeal. She argues that even though her military records were sent to Fort Lewis, the DOE possesses information that it has not disclosed to her. Letter dated February 11, 1998, from Matsuzaki to DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA).

II. Analysis

The Privacy Act requires each federal agency to, inter alia, permit an individual to gain access to information about that individual which is contained in any “system of records” maintained by the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d); 10 C.F.R. § 1008.6(a)(2). Information that is exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act must be released to a requester unless it is also exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(t)(2). Thus, it is the general practice of the DOE to process a request by an individual for information about that individual under both the Privacy Act and the FOIA. See David R. Berg, 26 DOE ¶ 80,210 (1997).

A Privacy Act request requires only a search of systems of records, rather than a search of all agency records, as is required under the FOIA. Nevertheless, the standard of sufficiency that we demand of a Privacy Act search is no less rigorous than that of a FOIA search. Therefore, we will analyze the adequacy of DOE/RL’s Privacy Act search using principles that we have developed under the FOIA. See Diane Larson, 26 DOE ¶ , Case No. VFA-0367 (February 17, 1998); Anibal L. Taboas, 25 DOE ¶ 80,207 at 80,775 (1996).

The FOIA requires that documents held by federal agencies generally be released to the public upon request. 5 U.S.C. § 552; 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. In responding to a request for information under the FOIA, it is well established that an agency must conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. Truitt v. Department of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990). We have stated on numerous occasions that a FOIA request deserves a thorough and conscientious search for responsive documents, and we have not hesitated to remand a case where it is evident that the search conducted was in fact inadequate. Butler, Vines and Babb, P.L.L.C., 25 DOE ¶ 80,152 (1995); Hideca Petroleum Corp., 9 DOE ¶ 80,108 (1981); Charles Varon, 6 DOE ¶ 80,118 (1980). The FOIA, however, requires that a search be reasonable, not exhaustive. "[T]he standard of reasonableness which we apply to agency search procedures does not require absolute exhaustion of the files; instead, it requires a search reasonably calculated to uncover the sought materials." Miller v. Department of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384-85 (8th Cir. 1985); accord Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In cases such as these, "[t]he issue is not whether any further documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was adequate." Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (emphasis in original).

Matsuzaki challenges the adequacy of DOE/RL’s search for documents responsive to her request. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Matsuzaki and Valerie Vance Adeyeye, OHA (February 19, 1998). However, Matsuzaki has admitted that she is aware that Hanford military records were sent to Fort Lewis. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Matsuzaki and Valerie Vance Adeyeye, OHA (February 19, 1998). In fact, she stated that she contacted an Army records center in Missouri, and they informed her of the fire at Fort Lewis. Id. Despite this information, we contacted DOE/RL to determine if any other records located at that office could contain responsive material. DOE/RL had indeed considered searching other Privacy Act systems of records (for example, Emergency Locator Records, Payroll and Leave Records, Firearms Qualifications, and EEO Complaints) as well as all other agency records under the FOIA. Memoranda of Telephone Conversations between Angela Lowman, DOE/RL and Valerie Vance Adeyeye, OHA (March 2, 1998 and March 5, 1998). However, because all records of military personnel stationed at Hanford had been transferred to Fort Lewis, DOE/RL concluded that it would be unlikely to locate any responsive material in agency files. Id.

Therefore, we find that DOE/RL has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover the requested information. Even though military records are not stored at Hanford, the agency conducted a conscientious search of the systems of records most likely to contain information related to Matsuzaki’s tour of duty at Hanford. Accordingly, the Appeal is hereby denied.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed by Masako Matsuzaki on February 11, 1998, Case Number VFA-0381, is hereby denied.

(2) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party may seek judicial review pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Judicial review may be sought in the district in which the requester resides or has a principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia.

George B. Breznay

Director

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: March 12, 1998