Case No. VFA-0717

March 26, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: VerdaBelle C. Jones

Date of Filing: February 5, 2002

Case Number: VFA-0717

On February 5, 2002, VerdaBelle C. Jones, filed an Appeal from a determination issued to her on January 8, 2002, by the Department of Energy's Richland’s Operation Office (Richland). That determination was issued in response to a request for information that Mrs. Jones submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. In her Appeal, Mrs. Jones asserts that Richland did not provide her with responsive documents in its possession regarding her request for information.

I. Background

On September 24, 2001, Mrs. Jones filed a request for information in which she sought the medical and radiation exposure records of her deceased husband, Richard G. Jones. See October 19, 2001 Determination Letter at 1. On October 19, 2001, Richland issued a determination which stated it conducted a search of its files and located a summary of Mr. Jones’ radiation exposure record. The summary included all of his Hanford Site dosimetry data and was generated from the site’s comprehensive database for radiation exposure records, known as the Hanford Radiological Exposure Reporting System (REX). Id. In this determination letter Richland indicated that it did not include the supporting documents related to Mr. Jones’ radiation exposure record (i.e., handwritten calculations, training rosters, yearly dose sheets, copies of punch cards, and personal radiation exposure history forms) all of which were previously entered in REX. Id. On January 8, 2002, Richland issued a second determination releasing the supporting material referred to in its October 19, 2001 determination letter.

On February 26, 2002, Mrs. Jones filed the present Appeal with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). In her Appeal, Mrs. Jones challenges the adequacy of the search conducted by Richland Specifically, Mrs. Jones argues that Richland failed to provide her with “everything” it possesses regarding her husband. Mrs. Jones further contends that there are unexplained gaps in her husband’s medical records. She believes Richland possesses additional information. Mrs. Jones asks that the OHA direct Richland to conduct a new search for additional responsive documents.

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 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. As stated above, upon receiving Mrs. Jones’ request for information, Richland conducted a search of the site’s comprehensive database for radiation exposure records. Based on this search, Richland released a summary of Mrs. Jones’ husband’s radiation exposure record. In addition, Richland informed Mrs. Jones that a copy of her husband’s medical record, maintained for the DOE by the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation (HEHF) would be forwarded to her from HEHF. Consequently, HEHF provided 702 pages of occupational health records to Mrs. Jones. According to Richland, HEHF conducted its search by name and social security number. We have ascertained that the records that the DOE and HEHF provided to Mrs. Jones are all the responsive records they located. Richland has informed us that HEHF would not possess private physician medical records as Mrs. Jones’ Appeal suggests. See Record of Telephone Conversation between Sarah Prein, Richland, and Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman, OHA (March 13, 2002). Given the facts presented to us, we find that Richland conducted an adequate search which was reasonably calculated to discover documents responsive to Mrs. Jones’ Request. Therefore, we must deny this Appeal.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed by VerdaBelle C. Jones, OHA Case No. VFA-0717, on February 26, 2002, 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: March 26, 2002