FOIA Appeal (FIA)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal; Appeal Denied; Adequacy of Search

On June 8, 2020, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal filed by One Source Equipment Rentals, Inc. (Appellant) concerning a FOIA request made to the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Appellant's FOIA request sought payment bonds associated with two purchase orders at the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12). NNSA referred Appellant's request to the management and operating contractor at Y-12, which in turn referred the request to Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI), the firm contracted to complete the construction project with which the payment bonds were associated. BNI performed a keyword search of its electronic procurement database using the applicable purchase order numbers and identified contracting records related to the procurements, but failed to locate the requested payment bonds. According to BNI, payment bonds were not required in connection with the purchase orders identified by the Appellant and if the payment bonds existed they would have been stored in the electronic procurement database. Appellant asserted on appeal that the search for records responsive to the request was inadequate. OHA determined that the location of the search and the keywords used to conduct the search were reasonably calculated to locate any records responsive to Appellant's FOIA request. Therefore, OHA denied Appellant's appeal. OHA Case No. FIA-20-0028.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal; Appeal Denied; Adequacy of Search; Exemption 5

On June 12, 2020, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal filed by InvestigateWest (Appellant) concerning a FOIA
request made to the Department of Energy's Golden Field Office (GFO). Appellant's FOIA request sought e-mails to and from a list of individuals concerning the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Interconnections Seam Study (Study). GFO searched the email accounts of two of the individuals identified by Appellant, but was unable to search the e-mail account of a third individual because that individual was no longer employed by NREL and the individual's e-mails were no longer retained as of the date of Appellant's FOIA request. GFO provided Appellant with over one hundred pages of responsive e-mails in response to his FOIA request, as well as copies of presentations and drafts of a paper summarizing preliminary results of the Study that were attached to the e-mails. GFO redacted portions of the e-mails and drafts of the paper under the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 of the FOIA. Appellant asserted on appeal that the search for records responsive to the request was inadequate, and that GFO inappropriate relied on Exemption 5 of the FOIA in withholding portions of responsive records because the content of the withheld records was scientific material concerning the results of the Study and not deliberative. OHA determined that GFO's search for responsive records was reasonable in light of the circumstances, and that there were no other viable avenues to pursue in searching for the third individual's e-mail records. With respect to Exemption 5, OHA reviewed unredacted copies of the records and determined that the portions withheld by GFO were pre-decisional and deliberative exchanges of ideas concerning refining the Study methodology and whether and in what form to publish materials concerning the Study's preliminary results which GFO properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 5. Therefore, OHA denied Appellant's appeal. OHA Case No. FIA-20-0034.