Case No. VFA-0720

March 22, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: Mavis L. Larson

Date of Filing: February 13, 2002

Case Number: VFA-0720

On February 13, 2002, Mavis L. Larson filed an Appeal from a determination the DOE’s Richland Operations Office (DOE/RL) issued on February 15, 2001. 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

Ms. Larson requested from DOE/RL “the employment and radiation exposure records of my deceased husband, Ahlert G. (Red) Larson. He worked at the Hanford site for Battelle from 1960-1975 as a sheep shearer.” Letter from Mavis L. Larson to DOE/RL (November 27, 2001). Mr. Larson died from leukemia in 1992. Appeal at 1. On December 12, 2001, DOE/RL sent a letter to Ms. Larson, informing her that it had “conducted a thorough search by name and Social Security Number (SSN) for records related to your husband and we were unable to locate any employment records, nor is there any indication he was monitored for radiation exposure at Hanford.” Letter from DOE/RL to Mavis Larson (December 12, 2001). Ms. Larson’s Appeal was filed on her behalf by her son, Darold Larson, who states, “I do not understand why you do not have any records of his employment as I personally know that he worked there numerous years.” Appeal at 1.(1)

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, we contacted DOE/RL and found out the following regarding its search. Because Ms. Larson’s request stated that her husband worked for Battelle, DOE/RL referred the request to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Battelle, a DOE contractor, has operated PNNL and performed research and development for the DOE’s Hanford site since 1965. Battelle searched both its employment records and radiation exposure records for any records pertaining to Mr. Larson. Both sets of records were searched by name and Social Security Number. Battelle located no records for Mr. Larson. DOE/RL also searched, by Social Security Number, the files of the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, which maintains occupational health and medical records for the Hanford site. That search also revealed no responsive records. Finally, DOE/RL searched, by name, records that it maintains for trade employees (i.e., welders, pipefitters, construction, etc.) and its general employment records for former employees of Hanford prime contractors and major sub-contractors. Again, no records regarding Mr. Larson were found.(2)

Based on the above descriptions, it appears clear to us that DOE/RL performed a diligent search of locations where responsive documents were most likely to exist. We therefore conclude that the search was reasonably calculated to uncover the records Ms. Larson sought. Thus, the present Appeal will be denied.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Freedom of Information Act Appeal filed by Mavis L. Larson, Case Number VFA- 0720, 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: March 22, 2002

(1)The DOE regulations require that a FOIA Appeal be filed within 30 days of the receipt of a determination in response to a FOIA request. 10 C.F.R. § 1004.8(a). DOE/RL’s determination was dated December 12, 2001, and the present Appeal was postmarked December 31, 2001. However, the U.S. Postal Service is currently sanitizing mail addressed to federal agencies, resulting in a significant delay in delivery. Thus, Ms. Larson’s Appeal did not reach the OHA until six weeks after it was mailed. Given these unusual circumstances, we will consider the present Appeal to be timely filed.

(2)Mr. Larson also submitted a copy of a letter he received from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which is responsible for administering the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Mr. Larson filed a claim with the program related to his father’s leukemia and his employment at Hanford. The letter from DOL states, “We have confirmation of employment from the Department of Energy.” Letter from Johnna Funk, DOL, to Mr. Larson (December 28, 2001). We contacted Ms. Funk and she explained that the letter was in error. The confirmation received from DOE was essentially confirmation that the DOE had completed a search of records and located no records on Mr. Larson. This search apparently duplicated the search of PNNL employment and radiation exposure records performed by DOE/RL in response to Ms. Larson’s FOIA request. Memorandum to file (March 12, 2002). To assist the DOL in processing Mr. Larson’s compensation claim, DOE (separate from the processing of the FOIA request at issue in this case) is currently in the process of obtaining historical records that may verify his father’s employment at the Hanford site. Electronic mail from Lorna Zaback, DOE/RL, to Steven Goering, OHA (February 28, 2002) (“Pacific Northwest National Laboratory did have people employed as sheep shearers on the Hanford Reservation in the past. Although we are not required to produce this information, we are awaiting some historical documentation about these people, the jobs that they performed, and the time frame in which they worked.”)