Case No. VFA-0755

August 20, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: Elaine M. Blakely

Date of Filing: July 15, 2002

Case Number: VFA-0755

This Decision and Order concerns an Appeal that Elaine M. Blakely filed from a determination issued to her by the Acting Assistant Inspector General for Inspections, Office of Inspector General (OIG). In this determination, OIG responded to Ms. Blakely’s request for information 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, Ms. Blakely challenges the adequacy of the search for responsive documents.

In her FOIA request, Ms. Blakely sought access to information pertaining to allegations, made in communications with the OIG, about the handling of hazardous wastes at the Fluor Fernald Waste Pits Remedial Action Project. Specifically, she requested a copy of the findings of any investigation of her allegations, and for the documentation supporting those findings. In its response, OIG identified 50 documents as being responsive to Ms. Blakely’s request. Of these 50 documents, 11 were released in their entirety, seven were released with portions withheld pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) (Exemptions 6 and 7(C)) of the FOIA, 15 originated in other DOE Offices and were referred to those Offices for the issuance of separate determinations, and the remaining 17 documents were not provided since they either originated from Ms. Blakely or had previously been provided to her. In her Appeal, Ms. Blakely states that there was nothing in the information provided that would indicate that a formal investigation had been performed.

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).

In order to determine whether the search conducted was adequate, we contacted OIG. We were informed that when Ms. Blakely’s allegations were received by OIG, a case file was established. The contents of this file were identified as responsive to Ms. Blakely’s request. See memorandum of July 25, 2002 telephone conversation between Caroline Nielsen, OIG, and Robert Palmer, OHA staff attorney. Also, we were informed that the allegations were referred to the DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management and the Ohio Field Office for an investigation into the merits of the allegations. See memorandum of August 12, 2002 telephone conversation between Ruby Isla, OIG, and Mr. Palmer. As previously indicated, documents located in the OIG file which were generated by these Offices were referred to the Offices for the issuance of separate determinations to Ms. Blakely. It is quite possible that the information that she seeks is included in those documents. In any event, there is no reason to believe that responsive documents existed outside of the OIG file. Based on the information before us, we find that the search for responsive documents was reasonably calculated to uncover the information sought, and was therefore adequate.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed by Elaine M. Blakely in Case No. VFA-0755 is hereby denied.

(2) This is a final order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party may seek judicial review. 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: August 20, 2002