Case No. VFA-0685

September 7, 2001

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: Janel Hensley

Date of Filing: August 7, 2001

Case Number: VFA-0685

On August 7, 2001, Janel Hensley filed an Appeal from a determination issued to her on June 19, 2001, by the Richland Operations Office (Richland) of the Department of Energy (DOE). That determination responded to a request for information she 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. Ms. Hensley asks that Richland conduct an additional search for documents responsive to her request.

I. Background

Ms. Hensley filed a request for information in which she sought the Hanford site radiation exposure, employment and medical records of her deceased father, Mr. Robert Hensley, who worked at the Hanford site. On April 30, 2001, Richland issued a determination which stated that it conducted a search for the requested document and located a summary of Mr. Hensley’s radiation exposure records and a copy of his employment records. These documents were provided to Ms. Hensley. In addition, medical records were forwarded to Ms. Hensley from the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation.

On May 13, 2001, Ms. Hensley provided Richland with additional information pertaining to her father’s Hanford Site employment and requested that Richland search again for additional radiation exposure and employment records. On June 19, 2001, Richland issued another determination which stated that it conducted a thorough search for the requested documents and located no additional documents responsive to Ms. Hensley’s request.

On August 7, 2001, Ms. Hensley filed the present Appeal with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). In her Appeal, Ms. Hensley challenges “the adequacy of the records available to search.” She states that she believes Richland was diligent in their searches. However, she asks that OHA direct DOE to locate and search additional locations where other records may be stored. See Appeal Letter at 1.

II. Analysis

The FOIA requires that documents held by federal agencies generally be released to the public upon request. Following an appropriate request, agencies are required to search their records for responsive documents. 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., Hideca Petroleum Corp., 9 DOE ¶ 80,108 (1981); Charles Varon, 6 DOE ¶ 80,118 (1980). In cases such as these, "[t]he issue is not whether any further responsive documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was inadequate." 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, 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).

In reviewing the present Appeal, we contacted officials at Richland to ascertain the extent of the search that had been performed and to determine whether any other documents responsive to Ms. Hensley’s request might exist. While she believes Richland conducted thorough searches, Ms. Hensley also believes that there must be old records located somewhere else. Upon receiving Ms. Hensley’s request for additional information, Richland instituted another search for radiation exposure and employment records at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and in the Richland office. Richland stated that it provided the laboratory with the additional information offered by Ms. Hensley, but the laboratory was unable to locate more responsive documents. See Record of Telephone Conversation between Dorothy Reilly, Richland, and Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman, OHA (August 20, 2001). Richland also indicated that all Hanford employee and visitor radiation exposure records are maintained solely by the laboratory and have not been shipped to another location for storage. Id. It further stated that the radiation exposure records may be tracked at the laboratory by using an employee’s name and social security number. The employment records are searched using a database and a card catalogue. Id. Based on the foregoing, Richland has convinced us that it has searched all of the areas where Hanford employee radiation exposure and employment records may be found.

Given the facts presented to us, we find that Richland conducted an adequate search which was reasonably calculated to uncover documents responsive to Ms. Hensley’s request. Accordingly, Ms. Hensley’s Appeal is denied.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed by Janel Hensley, OHA Case No. VFA-0685, on August 7, 2001, 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: September 7, 2001