Case No. VFA-0765

September 3, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner:Michael P. Cawley

Date of Filing:August 6, 2002

Case Number: VFA-0765

On August 6, 2002, Michael P. Cawley filed an appeal from a determination issued on July 23, 2002, by the Idaho Operations Office (Idaho) of the Department of Energy (DOE) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. In this appeal, Mr. Cawley contends that Idaho erroneously denied his request for the names of individuals who had worked at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) during a certain time period and filed a claim for radiation illness.(1) For the reasons detailed below, we find that Idaho correctly withheld the names of these individuals under Exemption 6 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6); 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10(b)(6), and deny the appeal.

Background

On July 18, 2001, Mr. Cawley submitted a FOIA request to Idaho seeking the names of individuals who had worked at INEEL from 1955 to 1974 and had filed a claim for radiation illness. On July 23, 2002, Idaho issued a determination letter to Mr. Cawley that denied this FOIA request on the grounds that such information is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).(2)

On August 6, 2002, Mr. Cawley appealed this determination to the Office of Hearings and Appeals. In this appeal, Mr. Cawley indicated that he had worked at INEEL from 1955 to 1974 and was making a claim for radiation illness. Mr. Cawley also explained that he was seeking the names of employees who were similarly situated because he believed that they could help each other.

Analysis

It is well settled that the purpose of Exemption 6 is to protect individuals from clearly unwarranted invasions of their personal privacy. Department of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 599 (1982). In order to determine whether information may be withheld under Exemption 6, an agency must undertake a three-step analysis. First, the agency must determine whether a significant privacy interest would be invaded by the disclosure of such information. If no privacy interest is identified, the record may not be withheld pursuant to Exemption 6. Ripskis v. Department of HUD, 746 F.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Ripskis). Second, the agency must determine whether release of the document would further the public interest by shedding light on the operations and activities of the government. See Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (Reporters Committee); Hopkins v. Department of HUD, 929 F.2d 81, 88 (2d Cir. 1991). In determining whether release of the document would further the public interest, the Supreme Court has held that the personal interest of the requester is irrelevant. Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 772-773. Finally, the agency must weigh the privacy interests it has identified against the public interest in order to determine whether the release of the record would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Reporters Committee; see also Frank E. Isbill, 27 DOE ¶ 80,215 (1999).

Applying these standards to the facts of this case, we conclude that Idaho properly withheld this information under Exemption 6. First, we find that individuals have a significant privacy interest in the fact that they have filed a claim for radiation illness. We have long held that a federal employee has a privacy interest in his or her name when it is linked to personally sensitive information. See The Cincinnati Enquirer, 25 DOE ¶ 80,206 at 80,768-69 (1996); William H. Payne, 25 DOE ¶ 80,190 at 80,726-27 (1996); The News Tribune, 25 DOE ¶ 80,181 at 80,699-700 (1996). The fact that an individual has filed a claim for radiation illness is sensitive information, and it is obvious that disclosure of this information may cause the individual to suffer embarrassment or unwarranted attention. Moreover, an individual might suffer financial harm if this information were disclosed because of the bias against people with disabilities. An individual thus has a privacy interest which will be invaded by the disclosure of such information. See Ripskis.

Second, we also find that release of the names of individuals who filed a claim for radiation illness would not further the public interest because such information would not shed light on the operations and activities of the government. We recognize that the public has a significant interest in knowing about the number of individuals who worked at INEEL and filed a claim for radiation illness.(3) Amongst other things, disclosure of this information would conceivably shed light on the hazards of radiation exposure, working conditions at INEEL, and the workings of a government compensation program. However, we also find that disclosure of the names of the affected individuals would reveal little or nothing about the operation and activities of government. See Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 773. See also Michael A. Grosche, 26 DOE ¶ 80,146 at 80,644 (1996) (release of names not in the public interest because names would not advance the public’s understanding of government). Moreover, in determining the public interest, we may not consider the fact that Mr. Cawley would like to obtain the names of other individuals who worked at INEEL and filed a claim for radiation illness because he is similarly situated. Reporters Committee at 771- 772. As such, we must conclude that release of the requested information would not further the public interest.

As we have found that there is a substantial privacy interest at stake in this case and that release of the requested information would not further the public interest, we conclude that Idaho properly withheld the names of individuals who worked at INEEL and filed a claim for radiation illness under Exemption 6 of the FOIA.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The portion of the Freedom of Information Act Appeal filed by Michael P. Cawley on August 6, 2002, that seeks information concerning the number of individuals who worked at INEEL and filed a claim for radiation illness is dismissed as moot, and the remainder of Mr. Cawley’s appeal is hereby denied.

(2) This is a final order of the Department of Energy of 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: September 3, 2002

(1)In his appeal, Mr. Cawley also indicated that Idaho had failed to respond to his request for information concerning the number of people who had worked at INEEL and had filed a claim for radiation illness. As Idaho provided this information to Mr. Cawley in a letter dated July 30, 2002, we will dismiss this portion of the appeal as moot.

(2)The determination letter also indicated that the names of such individuals would also be protected from disclosure under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. As stated in that letter, absent the express written consent of the individuals, Mr. Cawley has no right to access under the Privacy Act to records concerning other individuals. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).

(3)Idaho has already provided Mr. Cauley with information concerning the number of individuals who had been employed by INEEL and filed a claim for radiation illness.