Case No. VFA-0761

September 13, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Petitioner: Muriel F. Sorensen

Date of Filing: August 12, 2002

Case Number: VFA-0761

On August 12, 2002, Muriel F. Sorensen (Sorensen) filed an Appeal from a determination issued to her in response to a request for documents concerning her father, Acle Parke, that Sorensen submitted 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. The determination was issued on June 24, 2002, by the Richland Operations Office (Richland). This Appeal, if granted, would require that Richland perform an additional search.

I. Background

On May 21, 2002, Muriel Sorensen requested information regarding the “ . . . employment and/or medical records [Richland] might have pertaining to her father, Acle Parke.” Electronic mail message from Sarah Prein, Richland, to Valerie Vance Adeyeye, Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) (September 5, 2002). Ms. Sorensen stated that she “believed that [her] father was employed at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation site sometime in the 1940's.” Letter from Sorensen to Director, OHA (July 23, 2002). Richland conducted a search by name and Social Security number for responsive material, but was unable to locate any employment or medical records for Acle Parke. As a result, Richland denied the request, and Sorensen filed this Appeal.

II. Analysis

A. ADEQUACY OF SEARCH

In responding to a request for information filed under the FOIA, it is well established that an agency must “conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Truitt v. United States Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “The 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. United States Dep’t of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384-85 (8th Cir. 1985); accord Truitt, 897 F.2d at 542. We have not hesitated to remand a case where it is evident that the search conducted was in fact inadequate. See, e.g., Glen Milner, 17 DOE ¶ 80,102 (1988).

We contacted Richland to ascertain the scope of the search. Richland received the request on May 29, 2002, and faxed the request, along with Mr. Parke’s death certificate, to the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation (HEHF), which maintains all occupational health records for the Hanford Site, including pre-employment physicals, exit exams, and first aid treatments. Electronic mail message from Sarah Prein, Richland, to Valerie Vance Adeyeye, OHA (August 26, 2002). HEHF searched but found no responsive material. (1) Id. Richland also forwarded the request to two Richland employees who maintain record listings for employment records–one for trade employees and another for former Hanford prime contractor and subcontractor employees. Id. Both individuals searched the data in their possession and found no responsive records. Id. Richland then contacted its Human Resources Department to determine if Mr. Parke had ever been employed by the Atomic Energy Commission. Id. That department found no responsive material. Id. Finally, Richland asked the Radiation Exposure Records group to search for any information suggesting that Mr. Parke had been monitored for radiation exposure at Hanford. Id. That group found no responsive material. Id.

Based on the information above, we find that Richland has conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover any records relating to Acle Parke. We also note that the language in Ms. Sorensen’s request and Appeal suggests that she was not certain that her father had ever worked at the Hanford Nuclear Site. Accordingly, this Appeal should be denied.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Freedom of Information Act Appeal filed by Muriel Sorensen on August 12, 2002, OHA Case Number VFA-0761, 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: September 13, 2002

(1)The HEHF information begins in 1943, when DuPont began operations at Hanford. Electronic mail message from Sarah Prein, Richland, to Valerie Vance Adeyeye, OHA (August 26, 2002). The Hanford site was selected in December 1942 and work began on the site in the spring of 1943. Electronic mail message from Sarah Prein, Richland, to Valerie Vance Adeyeye, OHA (September 9, 2002).