Case No. VFA-0763

November 27, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Appellant:Carla Mink

Date of Filing:July 26, 2002

Case Number: VFA-0763

Carla Mink filed this Appeal from a determination issued to her by the Rocky Flats Field Office (RFFO) of the Department of Energy (DOE). The determination responded to a request for information she filed under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. If the present Appeal were granted, the DOE would be required to conduct a further search for the requested information.

Mink submitted a request to RFFO for copies of medical, radiation, and employment records relating to her father, Charles Donaldson. Mink said that Donaldson was a former employee of Swinerton and Walberg, a contractor at the RFFO site. She added that Donaldson worked as a plumber at the site during the 1960's.

RFFO responded with a Determination Letter, stating that it had conducted an extensive search and found no records responsive to Mink’s request. Mink appealed this determination. In her Appeal, Mink states;

I know for a fact that my father worked at Rocky Flats during the 1960's.... I know that over 30 years have passed since my father worked at Rocky Flats, but I also know that the United States Government keeps records of employees, and that his records must be on file.

(Emphasis in the original.)

II. Analysis

The Privacy Act (PA) requires that each federal agency permit an individual to gain access to information pertaining to him or her which is contained in any system of records maintained by the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d). A PA request requires only that the agency search systems of records, in contrast with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which requires an agency to search all of its records. Nevertheless, we require a search for relevant records under the PA to be conducted with the same rigor that we require for searches under the FOIA. Stephen A. Jarvis, Case No. VFA-0764, 29 DOE ¶ _____ (2002). We will therefore analyze the adequacy of the search conducted by RFFO in light of the principles we have applied in cases under the FOIA.

A FOIA request deserves a thorough and conscientious search for responsive records, and we will remand a case where it is evident that the search was inadequate. Butler, Vines and Babb, P.L.L.C., 25 DOE ¶ 80,152 (1995). A search must be reasonably calculated to find the requested records, but it need not be exhaustive. Miller v. Department of State, 779 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1985); accord Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C.Cir. 1984). Thus, in analyzing the adequacy of a search, “the 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).

In our review of Mink's Appeal, we contacted Mary Hammack of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Office at RFFO.(1) Hammack stated that Mink’s request was given to employees in the Records and Information Management office at the RFFO site. These employees searched three computerized data bases - employment records, medical records, and radiological records. The searches uncovered no records relating to Charles Donaldson.

Hammack also said it was not surprising that no records relating to Donaldson were found. She explained that Donaldson, as a plumber working for Swinerton and Walberg, was categorized for record- keeping purposes as a construction worker. Until the early 1980's, Hammack said, construction workers’ records were held by their employer, and not by RFFO. Since Donaldson left his employment at the RFFO site before the 1980's, it is unlikely that his records were transferred from Swinerton and Walberg to RFFO.

III. Conclusion

We believe that RFFO conducted a search that was reasonably calculated to find the materials requested by Mink. Moreover, based on the information provided by Hammack, we find no reason to believe that a further search would uncover records responsive to the request. We will therefore deny this Appeal.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed by Carla Mink, Case No. VFA-0763, 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)(g)(1). 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: November 27, 2002

(1)Although Mink’s request was for records pertaining to her father, and not to herself, her request was processed by RFFO as a PA request and not a FOIA request. Hammack told the OHA that this was done because the PA would give Mink broader access to records than the FOIA would, and that she performed the same full search for responsive records that she would have performed for a FOIA request.