Case No. VFA-0749

June 28, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: William D. Hooker, Sr.

Date of Filing: June 5, 2002

Case Number: VFA-0749

This Decision and Order concerns an Appeal that William D. Hooker, Sr. filed from a determination issued to him by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River Operations Office (SR). 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 DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. In this determination, the Savannah River Operations Office released some responsive information. The Appeal, if granted, would require the SR to conduct a further search for a specific document.

I. Background

Mr. Hooker filed a request in which he sought information concerning seven various documents. On May 9, 2002, the Savannah River Operations Office (SR) issued a determination which provided Mr. Hooker with copies of the documents he requested, with the exception of item no. 2 - “SU-75- 41R; Radiocesium Levels in Black Vultures and Turkey Vultures” (“Vargo SREL”). Mr. Hooker was informed that the SR site found no documents responsive to his request for a copy of Vargo SREL. In his appeal, Mr. Hooker challenges the adequacy of the search conducted by SR.

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., David G. Swanson, 27 DOE ¶ 80,178 (1999); 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 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, 1384-95 (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 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

In reviewing the present Appeal, we contacted officials at SR to ascertain the extent of the search that had been performed and to determine whether any documents existed that were responsive to Mr. Hooker’s request for a copy of Vargo SREL. We were informed of the following. Upon receiving Mr. Hooker’s request for information, the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL) searched its files and provided a copy of all the documents requested by Mr. Hooker with the exception of the Vargo SREL, which it could not locate. The SR then requested that Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) search its files. WSRC searched files in each of its departments, including its document control office, and found no responsive documents. The SR searched the DOE Public Reading Room database. This search yielded no responsive documents. See June 17, 2002 E-mail Message from Pauline Conner, SR, to Toni Brown, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Based on the foregoing, we find no reason to believe that additional responsive documents subject to the FOIA exist at the DOE. SR conducted a search of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, various departments within the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, and the SR’s Reading Room Database for responsive documents. These are the locations most likely to possess a copy of Vargo SREL, and they were searched. Given the facts, we believe SR’s search was adequate. Accordingly, Mr. Hooker’s Appeal should be denied.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Freedom of Information Act Appeal filed by William D. Hooker, Sr., Case No. VFA-0749, on June 5, 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 located, or in the District of Columbia.

George B. Breznay

Director

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: June 28, 2002