Case No. VFA-0456, 27 DOE ¶ 80,175

December 8, 1998

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: Louella Benson

Date of Filings: November 6, 1998

Case Numbers: VFA-0456

On November 6, 1998, Louella Benson (Benson) filed an Appeal with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Department of Energy (DOE) in response to a determination that the DOE Headquarters FOIA/Privacy Act Division (DOE/HQ) issued to her on October 16, 1998. The determination concerned a request for information that Benson submitted pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. If the present Appeal were granted, DOE/HQ would be required to conduct a further search for responsive material.

I. Background

In a letter to the Secretary of Energy, Benson requested information regarding any DOE funds disbursed to (1) Lloyd Energy of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or (2) Compass Bank, of Houston, Texas and/or any of their agents or associates, for any reasons, including but not limited to research and development, energy, dual-use, geophysical, environmental, or genetic operations. Letter from Benson to the Secretary of Energy (August 27, 1998). She also asked for information regarding any DOE funding for research and development projects at her properties in Virginia and Louisiana. Id. The Office of the Secretary forwarded the letter to DOE/HQ on September 14, 1998. DOE/HQ assigned the request to the Office of Energy Research (ER) and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CR) to conduct a search of their files. Letter from DOE/HQ to Benson (September 23, 1998). On October 2, 1998, CR sent Benson a list of DOE funds disbursed to Lloyd Energy, Compass Bank, and a school located in the same Louisiana parish as Benson’s property. Letter from CR to Benson (October 2, 1998). That letter also indicated that the responsive documents included only data residing at DOE Headquarters. Id. Shortly thereafter, DOE/HQ issued a determination to Benson, stating that ER found no responsive material in its search. Letter from DOE/HQ to Benson (October 16, 1998) (Determination Letter). On November 6, 1998, Benson filed this Appeal, arguing that the responsive information that she received was not complete because it did not contain an explanation of the payments. She also questioned whether other offices may possess responsive material.

II. Analysis

In responding to a request for information filed 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). “The 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 Truitt, 897 F.2d at 542. We have not hesitated to remand a case where it is evident that the search conducted was in fact inadequate. See, e.g., Glen Milner, 17 DOE ¶ 80,102 (1988).

In reviewing the present Appeal, we contacted CR and ER to ascertain the scope of both searches. DOE/HQ determined that ER would be a likely location for responsive documents, since ER is responsible for much of DOE’s research. DOE/HQ also sent the request to CR, the DOE office responsible for the disbursement of funds.

Two ER offices, the Office of Resource Management (ORM) and the Office of Health and Environmental Research (OHER), had conducted searches in response to Benson’s request. ORM informed us that the Grants and Contracts Division searched the Integrated Procurement System, a database of all grants and awards. No responsive material was found. OHER searched its database on city and state, and institution name. That search did not uncover any responsive material. See Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Bonnie Lasky, ER, and Valerie Vance Adeyeye, OHA (December 1, 1998).

Capital Accounting is one of three DOE payment offices, and is the CR office responsible for headquarters payments and disbursements. Capital Accounting had searched its records in response to Benson's request and found responsive material from fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1998. CR promptly sent this material to Benson, along with the name of a CR employee to call with any questions about the disclosure.(1) Thus, CR fulfilled its obligation under the FOIA to provide responsive, non-exempt material to a requester. Nonetheless, after discussing the Appeal with this office, and being advised of the requester's apparent lack of understanding of the material produced, CR offered to research the payments listed in the responsive material in order to provide Benson with any non-exempt background information. See Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Bill Robinson, CR and Valerie Vance Adeyeye, OHA Staff Attorney (November 30, 1998). We also contacted CR’s Office of Departmental Accounting to determine if additional responsive material existed in local offices. That group agreed to ask the two remaining DOE payment offices (Albuquerque and Oak Ridge) to search for any further responsive documents. See Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Woodie Fisher, CR, and Valerie Vance Adeyeye, OHA (December 3, 1998). A new response is forthcoming.

We find that ER and CR conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all documents related to DOE disbursements to Lloyd Energy, Compass Bank, and research projects that may exist at the requester’s properties. As stated above, the FOIA does not require an exhaustive search, only a reasonable one. On the basis of the facts provided above, we conclude that ER and CR conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents. Accordingly, we must deny Benson’s Appeal.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed on November 6, 1998 by Louella Benson, OHA Case No. VFA-0456, 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: December 8, 1998

(1)According to Benson, she made repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact this individual.