Case No. VFA-0624, 28 DOE ¶ 80,130

December 4, 2000

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner:Judith A. Neal

Date of Filing:November 2, 2000

Case Number: VFA-0624

On November 2, 2000, Judith Neal filed an Appeal from a determination the FOIA Officer of the Oak Ridge Operations Office (FOIA Officer) of the Department of Energy (DOE) issued to her on August 10, 2000. In that determination, the FOIA Officer denied a request for information that Ms. Neal filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. The FOIA generally requires that a federal agency release documents to the public upon request. The FOIA, however, lists nine exemptions that set forth the types of information that a federal agency either may or must withhold. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10(b).

In Ms. Neal’s request for information, she sought copies of documents pertaining to her mother, Carrie W. Smith, who worked at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project. The FOIA Officer’s determination letter indicated that she found no documents responsive to the request. In this Appeal, Ms. Neal asks us to verify that the DOE conducted a search that included her mother’s maiden name, Carrie W. Wilson, as well as her married name, Carrie W. Smith. In accordance with Ms. Neal’s Appeal, we have reviewed the adequacy of the search for responsive documents.

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). 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).

To determine whether an agency's search was adequate, we must examine its actions under a "standard of reasonableness." McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1100-01 (D.C. Cir. 1983), modified in part on rehearing, 711 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1983). This standard "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). Furthermore, the determination of whether a search was reasonable is "dependent upon the circumstances of the case." Founding Church of Scientology v. National Security Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

We have investigated the DOE’s search made in response to Ms. Neal’s request. In this investigation, we contacted the FOIA Officer to answer Ms. Neal’s question concerning the extent of the DOE’s search. The FOIA Officer informed us that she conducted a search using Ms. Neal’s mother’s social security number. She stated that a social security number search ensured that all records for Carrie Smith, Carrie Wilson, or any other names her mother might have used would be retrieved if they existed. Furthermore, the FOIA Officer informed us that all of the relevant DOE records from this time period were located in “the vault” and these records were organized by social security number. See Record of November 27, 2000 Telephone Conversation between Leonard M. Tao, OHA Staff Attorney, and Amy Rothrock, Oak Ridge Operations Office FOIA Officer. Thus, we find that the FOIA Officer’s use of Ms. Neal’s mother’s social security number to search for responsive records was the most effective and comprehensive method possible and there is no need for a separate search using only Ms. Neal’s mother’s maiden name. Since the FOIA Officer conducted a search that was the most likely to reveal any responsive information and she confirmed that no responsive documents exist, we find the FOIA Officer’s search to be adequate and must deny Ms. Neal’s appeal.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal Judith A. Neal filed on November 2, 2000, Case No. VFA-0624, 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 either in the district where 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 4, 2000