Case No. VFA-0595, 28 DOE ¶ 80,118

October 19, 2000

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: Oleta Longmire

Date of Filing: September 28, 2000

Case Number: VFA-0595

This Decision and Order concerns an Appeal that was filed by Oleta Longmire from a determination that the Freedom of Information Officer of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Richland Operations Office (ROO) issued to her. In this determination, ROO stated that it could not locate any documents that were responsive to the request for information that Ms. Longmire filed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. If we were to grant the Appeal, this matter would be remanded to ROO for a new search.

In her FOIA request, Ms. Longmire sought access to her deceased husband’s medical records. In its determination, ROO stated that medical records at the site at which Mr. Longmire worked were maintained by the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation (HEHF), and that HEHF had thoroughly searched its records, by name and by social security number, without success. In her Appeal, Ms. Longmire challenges the adequacy of HEHF’s search.

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. See, e.g., Butler, Vines and Babb, P.L.L.C., 25 DOE ¶ 80,152 (1995). 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).

In order to obtain further information about the FOIA request and about the scope of the search, we contacted Ms. Longmire, ROO and HEHF. We were informed that HEHF had conducted computerized searches of all four databases in which responsive documents might have been located, and that no such documents were found. However, we learned that HEHF would not have records for individuals who were employed at Hanford prior to 1965. Ms. Longmire informed us that Mr. Longmire worked at Hanford during 1945 and 1946. (1) We then ascertained that E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc. (Dupont) operated the Hanford facility for the federal government during that period, and that if Mr. Longmire’s Hanford records still existed, Dupont would have them. See memorandums of September 29, 2000 telephone conversations between Robert Palmer, OHA Staff Attorney, Angela Lowman, ROO, Cheryl Holland, HEHF, and Ms. Longmire.(2) For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that ROO’s search for responsive documents was reasonably calculated to uncover the sought materials, and was therefore adequate. We will therefore deny Ms. Longmire’s Appeal.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed by Oleta Longmire in Case No. VFA-0595 is hereby denied.

(2) This is a final order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party may seek judicial review. 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: October 19, 2000

(1)At the time that it performed the search, ROO did not know the dates of Mr. Longmire’s employment.

(2)We then informed Ms. Longmire that she could request the records by letter addressed to: E.I. Dupont de Nemours, Inc., Hall of Records, Wilmington, Delaware, 19898.