Case No. VFA-0621, 28 DOE ¶ 80,127

November 29, 2000

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: Norris Ramage

Date of Filing: October 16, 2000

Case Number: VFA-0621

On October 16, 2000, Norris Ramage filed an Appeal from a determination the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Operations Office (DOE/OR) issued on September 29, 2000. The determination responded to a request for information filed 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.

I. Background

Mr. Ramage requested from DOE any records concerning his father, James Dennis Ramage, who was employed by a DOE subcontractor between 1950 and 1955 at the Department’s Paducah (Kentucky) Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and any information regarding the subcontractor, F.H. McGraw. Letter from Norris Ramage to Amy Rothrock, DOE/OR (undated); Letter from Norris Ramage, to Paul Seligman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Studies (undated). In response to this request, DOE/OR issued a determination releasing a radiation exposure record, “the only record located on Mr. Ramage . . . .” Letter from Amy L. Rothrock, DOE/OR, to Norris Ramage (September 29, 2000). DOE/OR also informed Mr. Ramage that, in “response to your request for information on the activities of F.H. McGraw, no records could be found.” Id. Mr. Ramage challenges the adequacy of DOE/OR’s search for documents responsive to his request.

II. Analysis

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) (emphasis in original).

Accordingly, upon receiving the present Appeal, we contacted DOE/OR to inquire as to the search it conducted in response to Mr. Ramage’s request. DOE/OR informed us that it searched

the medical, personnel, radiation exposure (dosimetry) and similar files in the possession of the DOE, the current DOE contractor and the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), the company that leases the facility and retains custody of some records that they share with DOE for epidemiological and regulatory uses by government agencies.

Electronic mail from Amy Rothrock, DOE/OR, to Steven Goering, OHA (November 2, 2000). Specifically, DOE/OR stated that the following Privacy Act systems of records(1) were searched:

DOE-5 Personnel Records of Former Contractor Employees

DOE-33 Personnel Medical Records

DOE-35 Personnel Radiation Exposure Records

DOE-71 and DOE-72 Radiation Accident and Radiation Study Registries

Electronic mail from Amy Rothrock to Steven Goering (November 16, 2000). In addition, DOE/OR performed a search of its procurement records and of medical, exposure, and personnel files in its Records Holding Area, which contains historical medical and personnel records from the beginning of the Manhattan Project at Oak Ridge. Id.(2)

Based on the above descriptions, it appears clear to us that DOE/OR performed a search of locations where responsive documents were most likely to exist. We therefore conclude that DOE/OR's search was reasonably calculated to uncover the records Mr. Ramage sought. See Janice R. McLemore, 27 DOE ¶ 80,258 (2000) (DOE/OR search of pertinent Privacy Act systems of records and Records Holding Area constituted adequate search for medical records of requester’s father). Thus, the present Appeal will be denied.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Freedom of Information Act Appeal filed by Norris Ramage, Case Number VFA- 0621, 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 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: November 29, 2000

(1) A Privacy Act system of records is a group of records under DOE control from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol or other identifying particulars assigned to the individual. See 10 C.F.R. § 1008.2 (m).

(2) The Manhattan Project was the name of the effort to develop the first atomic bomb for the United States during World War II.