U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit Services 

Audit Report 

The Department of Energy's 

Opportunity for Energy Savings 

Through Improved Management of 

Facility Lighting 

DOE/IG-0835 June 2010 
Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

July 1, 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY

FROM: Gregory H. Friedman

 Inspector General

SUBJECT: INFORMATION: Audit Report on "The Department of Energy's

 Opportunity for Energy Savings Through Improved Management of

 Facility Lighting"

BACKGROUND

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) highlighted the 

importance of reducing the Nation's dependence on foreign oil and conserving scarce energy 

resources. The Department of Energy, as the designated lead agency for promoting new 

technologies, providing leadership for energy conservation and helping Federal agencies reduce 

energy costs, plays a pivotal role in achieving the Recovery Act's energy related goals. The 

Department spends nearly $300 million per year in energy costs for its 9,000 buildings at 24 

sites. Electricity costs, totaling $190 million, account for close to two-thirds of the Department's 

total energy expenditures, with roughly 40 percent or $76 million of those costs attributable to 

the cost of lighting. New lighting technologies and advanced lighting systems offer the 

Department the opportunity to significantly reduce energy consumption; decrease operating costs 

at its sites throughout the country; and, demonstrate the benefits of using new lighting 

technologies that are currently being developed in its laboratories and by other sources.

Because of its energy conservation leadership role, we initiated this audit to determine whether 

the Department's facilities had implemented lighting conservation measures.

RESULTS OF AUDIT

The seven sites included in our review had not always taken advantage of lighting technology 

opportunities to reduce energy consumption and save taxpayer dollars. While sites had, to 

varying degrees, begun to update lighting, significant opportunities for conservation remain. 

Specifically, we noted that the sites had not always:

Used the most efficient lighting. In fact, each of the sites used outdated fluorescent lights 

when more energy and cost efficient alternatives were available. For example, more than 

55 percent of lighting purchases made by the Idaho National Laboratory and 40 percent 

from the Savannah River Site consisted of outdated, less efficient fluorescent lights. 

Also, Sandia National Laboratory site personnel estimated that 60 to 70 percent of the

buildings at their California site used similar, inefficient fluorescent lighting;
2

Implemented, to the extent practical, energy efficient lighting technologies, such as 

spectrally enhanced lighting (SEL) and solid state lighting (SSL), whose research and 

development had actually been funded by the Department. In addition to significant 

energy savings, SEL and SSL have proven to be highly cost-effective, with estimated 

payback periods as short as one to three years when considering maintenance and energy 

savings; and,

Maximized the energy savings associated with installing automated lighting control 

systems. Of the 96 buildings reviewed, 30, or about one-third, did not use occupancy 

sensors and 77 of the buildings, or 80 percent, did not use scheduling systems to 

automatically shut off lights.

Local officials acknowledged that they had not fully utilized basic and advanced lighting 

conservation measures. They cited the lack of resources for phasing in more energy efficient 

lighting as the primary impediment along with a lack of systematic planning. Although not 

widespread, other reasons offered by site officials included problems with temporarily shutting 

down contaminated sites and sensitive areas to replace lighting; security concerns; and, worker 

displacement. We noted that site officials, especially energy management team personnel, were 

knowledgeable of energy-saving lighting technology and appeared to be enthusiastic about the 

potential for reducing energy consumption by improving lighting efficiency.

By not capitalizing on opportunities to improve lighting efficiency, the Department uses and will 

continue to use more energy than necessary, impacting its ability to achieve its mission to 

advance the energy security of the United States. Based on the work performed during the audit, 

and using a conservative estimating technique, we believe that, had the Department employed 

the latest lighting technologies throughout the complex, it could have saved enough electricity to 

power over 3,200 homes per year. Further, the Department missed a significant opportunity to 

promote advanced lighting technologies, including those developed by its own laboratory 

system. Finally, the leadership role of the Department, specifically in the Federal energy sector, 

is undermined when it does not avail itself of readily available energy efficiency techniques. 

Prior Office of Inspector General reports have identified similar or related issues regarding 

energy conservation at the Department. In our report on The Department of Energy's 

Opportunity for Energy Savings Through the Use of Setbacks in its Facilities (DOE/IG-0817, 

July 2009), we found that the Department could significantly reduce energy consumption 

through the use of setbacks on heating and cooling systems. In two other reports, Department of 

Energy Efforts to Manage Information Technology Resources in an Energy-Efficient and 

Environmentally Responsible Manner (OAS-RA-09-03, May 2009), and Management of the 

Department's Data Centers at Contractor Sites (DOE/IG-0803, October 2008), we found that the 

Department had not always taken adequate steps to incorporate energy efficient processes into 

information technology systems.

We made several recommendations designed to assist the Department in its effort to save energy 

and reduce costs.
3

MANAGEMENT REACTION

Department management generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. Management 

emphasized the importance of reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and 

provided actions that will be taken to address the issues identified in our report. In separate 

comments, the National Nuclear Security Administration indicated that it would work with its 

sites and Headquarters to ensure that actions are taken to address facility lighting. 

Management's comments are included in Appendix 4. 

Attachment

cc: Deputy Secretary

Under Secretary of Energy

Under Secretary for Science

Under Secretary of Nuclear Security

Chief of Staff

Chief Financial Officer

Director, Office of Risk Management, CF-80

Director, Office of Science, SC-1

Team Leader, Office of Risk Management, CF-80

Audit Resolution Specialist, Office of Risk Management, CF-80

Director, Office of Internal Controls, NA-66
REPORT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OPPORTUNITY FOR 

ENERGY SAVINGS THROUGH IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF

FACILITY LIGHTING

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Facility Lighting

Details of Finding 1

Recommendations 5

Comments 6

Appendices

1. Types of Lighting 7

2. Objective, Scope, and Methodology 8

3. Prior Audit Reports 10

4. Management Comments 11
ENERGY SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES

Page 1 Details of Finding

Use of Efficient and Our review of lighting equipment and systems in 96 buildings at 

Innovative Lighting 7 of the Department of Energy's (Department) 24 major sites 

found significant opportunities for conserving energy and reducing 

costs. Specifically, the Department had not always used the most 

efficient lighting available in the market; fully adopted innovative 

lighting technologies developed in the Department's laboratories; and, 

ensured the optimal use of advanced lighting control systems.

Use of Energy Efficient Lighting

The seven sites we visited used, to varying extents, outdated and 

inefficient fluorescent lights, commonly known as T12s. These lights 

were introduced over 40 years ago and were replaced by T8 

technology in the 1980s. Since that time, T8 technology has 

advanced rapidly. Despite demonstrated and well known energy 

reductions of up to 40 percent associated with the latest fluorescent 

lighting technology, the Department's facilities continued to make 

widespread use of T12 technology. (See Appendix 1)

Although the Department lacked consistent and comprehensive 

information on its use of different types of lighting, we observed 

examples of the large-scale uses of inefficient, outdated lighting. In 

2009, T12 lights accounted for over 55 percent of all lighting 

purchases at Idaho National Laboratory (Idaho) and over 40 percent 

at Savannah River Site (Savannah River), with T12 light purchases 

totaling 21,500 and 18,000 units respectively. Pantex Plant (Pantex) 

officials told us that they had upgraded a significant number of 

lighting fixtures, but acknowledged that numerous buildings had not 

been upgraded at the site due to the partial termination of an Energy 

Savings Performance Contract. As of December 2009, Pantex did not 

have a definitive schedule to install improved lighting equipment that 

had been stored in large containers for almost a year. Additionally, at 

Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), the entire administrative 

building relied on inefficient T12 lighting; and, Sandia National 

Laboratory (Sandia) personnel estimated that 60 to 70 percent of the

buildings at its California site used T12 lights. 

While an improvement over T12 equipment, some sites continued to 

use outdated T8 lights. Savannah River, for example, had not 

evaluated the cost-effectiveness of upgrading approximately 22,000 

T8 lights that had been installed 15 years ago. According to the 

Department's Federal Energy Management Program, the trend of 

rapid improvements in lighting technologies can create cost-effective 

opportunities for upgrading lighting in Federal facilities, even if the 

lighting has been upgraded in the last 5 to 10 years. High 

performance T8 lights are initially more expensive than either T12s or 
Page 2 Details of Finding

outdated T8s. However, the payback period can be as short as 2

years, with energy savings of 10 to 20 percent compared to outdated 

T8 lighting systems. 

In addition to savings that could be achieved by updating fluorescent 

lighting, the Department could also conserve energy by replacing 

incandescent lights with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). CFLs 

use 75 percent less energy, last about 10 times longer than 

incandescent lights and are generally compatible with existing 

sockets. Therefore, they often require no additional labor costs or 

fixture adjustments. Despite the substantial benefits of CFLs, all of 

the sites we visited continued to purchase incandescent lights. CFL 

replacement, if available, can dramatically reduce energy 

consumption. In fact, replacing one standard incandescent light with 

a CFL can save $30 in energy costs over its lifetime, which is 

approximately 6,000 to 12,000 hours. (See Appendix 1)

Implementation of Innovative Lighting Technologies

For the most part, sites either did not use, or made limited use of,

innovative lighting technologies developed in the Department's 

research laboratories. For example, the Department had funded 

research in a technology known as Spectrally Enhanced Lighting 

(SEL). This technology takes advantage of the human eye's ability to 

see more clearly when the spectral properties of lighting are shifted to 

be more like the color of daylight. One SEL study concluded that

energy reductions ranging from 20 to 45 percent could be realized 

with no effect on occupant satisfaction. Further, the costs to upgrade 

to SEL are estimated to be recouped through energy and maintenance 

savings in one to three years. Despite known benefits, of the seven 

sites reviewed, the use of SELs was limited to two leased facilities at 

Idaho, and one project at Argonne. Argonne officials stated that 

energy consumption was reduced by 50 percent as a result of 

converting its old T12 systems to SEL technology. 

In addition to energy savings opportunities afforded by SEL,

Department officials reported that no other lighting technology offers 

as much potential to save energy and enhance the quality of building 

environments as Solid State Lighting (SSL). Some applications of 

the technology are now commercially viable. For example, costeffective solid state light-emitting diode (LED) products that offer 

lighting uniformity and longer operating life are now available for 

exterior applications. In fact, a Department parking lot lighting 

demonstration project in California concluded that LED technology 

saved enough money to cover initial costs in three years. However, 

the sites we reviewed had used LEDs in only a limited number of 
Page 3 Details of Finding

outdoor applications. Officials at four of the seven sites stated that 

they had completed small LED projects to include several test 

demonstrations. Only Sandia completed a larger project, 

comparatively, with over 120 parking lot and street lights replaced 

with LEDs. 

To their credit, a number of Department sites are planning to expand 

the use of innovative technologies. The Department, for example, 

plans to replace 600 fixtures in the outdoor area of the Forrestal 

building in Washington, D.C., with LEDs, with anticipated savings of 

close to $50,000 annually and a payback period of less than four 

years. In addition, Argonne officials informed us that they have

begun to gather information on an indoor lighting project for the 

Advanced Photon Source Building and are working with a vendor to 

evaluate the replacement of metal halide and fluorescent lamps with 

LEDs. According to officials, replacing existing lighting with LEDs 

has the potential to immediately reduce energy consumption by 60 to 

70 percent per light, depending on the application. 

Use of Lighting Control Systems

The seven sites we visited also had not always maximized the energy 

savings associated with using automated lighting control systems. An 

estimated 30 to 50 percent reduction in lighting energy use can be 

achieved with lighting control systems. While all sites reviewed 

employed occupancy sensors to turn lights off in empty rooms, the 

sensors had not been implemented uniformly throughout each site. 

Of the 96 buildings that we evaluated for use of occupancy sensors,

30 buildings, or about 30 percent, did not contain occupancy sensors. 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, for example, had installed 

occupancy sensors in only one-half of the occupied space in one of 

the buildings included in our review. In two buildings we evaluated 

for occupancy sensor use at Argonne, officials identified additional 

opportunities for expanded use of occupancy sensors in the restrooms 

and additional office space areas that are currently not covered by 

sensors.

In addition to occupancy sensing systems, the sites had not 

consistently installed automatic light scheduling systems to reduce 

energy consumption through lighting. Of the 96 buildings, 77

buildings, or about 80 percent, did not contain automatic scheduling 

systems. In one case, an installed system was not operational. 

Specifically, Argonne had installed an automatic scheduling system 

in a building at the time it was constructed in 1997, but the central 

control unit needed to make the system operable had not been 

purchased as of March 2010. 
Page 4 Details of Finding

Prioritizing Overall, these conditions occurred because the Department lacked a 

Improvements systematic approach to upgrading lighting systems and an adequately

in Facility Lighting funded energy conservation program. Department support for

improving lighting was generally very limited. The Department had

not planned for energy efficiency improvements in the budgeting 

process, relying, to some extent, on private financing mechanisms 

known as Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs). 

However, according to the Department, funding lighting projects with 

ESPCs may not be a viable option solely due to the size and scope of 

the projects. According to Department guidance, ESPCs are most 

appropriately used for comprehensive projects rather than single 

measure projects such as lighting. In fact, recent proposals for ESPCs 

at Savannah River and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

(Berkeley), which included lighting components, were rejected

because the projects, as a whole, were not economically feasible. 

Notably, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

requested over $6.6 million for an Energy Modernization and 

Investment Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to promote 

sustainability and reduce energy usage. 

Further, the Department had not tracked or ensured the reinvestment 

of savings accruing from energy conservation projects. DOE Order 

430.2B requires savings from energy conservation measures to be 

reinvested in additional energy conservation efforts. We found, and a 

senior Department official confirmed, that there was no Departmentwide system in place to track or calculate reinvestment of energy 

savings. With the exception of Argonne, there was no formal system 

in place at the sites we visited to identify energy savings for 

reinvestment. Argonne officials report energy savings and 

reinvestment opportunities to the Argonne Site Office on a semiannual basis. Formally tracking and reinvesting energy savings 

allows for additional funding opportunities for projects that are 

smaller in scale in relation to other energy conservation activities, like 

facility lighting. 

Finally, we found that the sites each had unique lighting replacement

issues. Specifically, Argonne officials commented that they faced 

two issues in upgrading a large administrative building containing 

T12 lights – the displacement of workers and ceiling heights. 

Additionally, Pantex and Savannah River officials stated that 

replacing lighting can be very complicated due to the mission needs

of the sites and related security concerns. Though we acknowledge 

the difficulties associated with replacing lighting in some buildings, 

overall, we concluded that with proper planning, coordination and 

funding these efforts would be highly beneficial to the sites and the 

Department. 
Page 5 Recommendations

Energy Savings By exploiting readily available efficient lighting and lighting systems 

Opportunities opportunities, the Department could save over $2.2 million in electric

utility operating costs annually, equating to the amount of electricity 

used to power over 3,200 homes per year. Equally important, by 

demonstrating the cost-effective use of state-of-the-art lighting, the 

Department could better fulfill its role of promoting energy 

conservation and adoption of the latest technologies in both the 

private and public sectors. 

The energy savings estimate, in our view, was based on extremely 

conservative calculations. Our estimate does not reflect, for example, 

the additional savings opportunities that are available to the 

Department through retrofitting incandescent, high pressure sodium, 

metal halide, or standard T8 lighting systems. We were unable to 

fully quantify the use of these systems. However, during site tours 

and our review of purchasing data, we observed that these outdated 

technologies are in use and represent an opportunity for the 

Department to realize additional savings. 

RECOMMENDATIONS To improve the Department's management of facility lighting, we

recommend that the Under Secretary of Energy, the Under Secretary 

for Science, and the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security require 

Federal Site Managers to:

1. Evaluate opportunities for replacing outdated lighting 

systems and demonstrating the practical application of 

lighting technologies developed in the Department's 

laboratories; 

2. Develop a plan to phase in more efficient lighting 

technologies currently available in the market; and,

3. Develop a process to track and reinvest energy savings as 

required in DOE Order 430.2B.

We also recommend that the Under Secretary of Energy and the 

Under Secretary for Science, in conjunction with the Chief Financial 

Officer:

4. Evaluate the budget process to ensure that the Department is 

pursuing funding for energy efficiency programs.

MANAGEMENT Management generally agreed with the conclusions and 

REACTION recommendations in our report. The Office of the Under Secretary of 

Energy indicated that it would take action to develop processes to 
Page 6 Recommendations and Comments

track energy savings and recognized that there were additional 

opportunities available to reduce energy consumption through 

improved lighting. The Office of Science noted that it would take 

additional steps to address the findings in our report and evaluate 

policy options for tracking and reinvesting savings. The Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer provided comments indicating that it would 

further evaluate policy options for tracking and reinvesting savings 

across the Department and that the FY 2012 budget guidance 

addressed the recommendation to evaluate the budget process for 

energy efficiency programs. 

In separate comments, NNSA indicated that it would work with its

sites and Headquarters to resolve impediments to capitalizing on 

energy efficient lighting, and develop plans to deploy more energy 

efficient, technologically advanced lighting.

AUDITOR Management's comments, included in Appendix 4, are responsive to 

COMMENTS our finding and recommendations. Overall, we are encouraged by the 

Department's response to our report and its plans to reduce energy 

consumption through improved facility lighting at Department sites. 

In response to Office of Science comments, we reconsidered the 

methodology we used to calculate the potential energy savings

presented in our report. We concluded that the estimate we used was 

accurate and reasonable. The estimate of energy savings was based, 

in part, on data provided by the Energy Information Administration. 
Appendix 1

Page 7 Types of Lighting

TYPES OF LIGHTING
Appendix 2

Page 8 Objective, Scope, and Methodology

OBJECTIVE The objective of this audit was to determine if the Department of 

Energy (Department) had effectively used lighting conservation 

measures.

SCOPE The audit was performed between September 2009 and April 2010 at 

the Department's Headquarters in Washington, D.C.; Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California; Sandia 

National Laboratory (Sandia) in Livermore, California; Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California; Idaho 

National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho; Pantex Plant (Pantex) in 

Amarillo, Texas; Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Illinois; 

and, Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina.

METHODOLOGY To accomplish the audit objective, we:

Analyzed 12 months (Fiscal Year 2009) of lighting products 

purchased for each site; 

Reviewed energy management programs and site executable 

plans for each site;

Interviewed key personnel at Department Headquarters and 

each of the sites;

Toured selected general purpose and administrative 

buildings at each site;

Analyzed cost-effectiveness of different lighting 

technologies;

Developed a savings estimate by using an assumption that 

10 percent of the Department's facilities used T12 lighting 

systems, and applying a 30 percent energy savings 

associated with converting from a T12 to a T8 system to the 

40 percent energy consumption attributed to building 

lighting; 

Reviewed energy saving performance contracts and 

analyzed lighting projects completed and planned for each 

site; and,

Reviewed laws and regulations pertaining to energy 

conservation practices and lighting standards.
Appendix 2 (Continued)

Page 9 Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Due to the lack of consistent and comprehensive information on the 

Department's use of lighting, we were unable to statistically project

the number of T12 and outdated T8 lighting systems currently used 

at Department facilities. However, we based our energy savings 

estimate that 10 percent of Department facilities contained T12 

lighting systems on information gathered from the sites we reviewed 

to include site tours, procurement data, and interviews with energy 

management officials. Each site provided varying information 

regarding the number of T12 lights used at the site. Pantex stated 

that 10 percent of the site's lighting systems had not been upgraded 

while Sandia stated 60 to 70 percent of the site used T12 lighting 

systems. Because of the difference between sites and the 

inconsistent data presented, we used the most conservative number, 

10 percent, provided by the sites. In addition, we based our estimate 

that 40 percent of site electricity is consumed through lighting on 

estimates made by the Energy Information Administration. Based 

on the information gathered during the audit, we believe this 

estimate accurately represents our findings.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally 

accepted Government auditing standards. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our finding and 

conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our finding and 

conclusions based on the audit objective. The audit included tests of 

controls and compliance with laws and regulations necessary to 

satisfy the audit objective. Because our review was limited, it would 

not necessarily have disclosed all internal control deficiencies that 

may have existed at the time of our audit. 

During the audit, we assessed the Department's compliance with the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. We concluded 

that the Department had not established performance measures for 

management of lighting controls at the sites reviewed. Also, we did 

not rely on computer generated data to perform the audit.

Management waived the exit conference.
Appendix 3

Page 10 Prior Audit Reports

PRIOR AUDIT REPORTS

The Department of Energy's Opportunity for Energy Savings Through the Use of Setbacks in 

its Facilities (DOE/IG-0817, July 2009). The audit revealed that the Department of Energy 

(Department) had not effectively used operational setbacks of the heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning systems in Department facilities. It was noted during the audit that several sites 

examined did not use or failed to properly maintain setback systems, and the Department did 

not ensure setback capabilities were utilized at 64 percent of the sites reviewed. The audit 

discovered the Department could improve on reducing energy consumption by properly 

maintaining or utilizing setbacks, thereby saving taxpayer dollars. An estimated $11.5 

million could have been saved in annual utility costs. 

Department of Energy Efforts to Manage Information Technology Resources in an EnergyEfficient and Environmentally Responsible Manner (OAS-RA-09-03, May, 2009). The audit 

revealed that the Department did not take adequate steps to ensure energy efficiency through 

management of information technology resources. 8 Specifically, the sites visited had not 

implemented the recommended time for standby mode, many computers did not have the 

hibernation feature enabled, and energy saving desktop devices were not purchased. The 

Department had not taken important steps to reduce energy consumption and properly 

monitor performance to realize energy savings, and it was estimated the Department spent 

$1.6 million more on energy costs for Fiscal Year 2008 by not adequately addressing the 

opportunity for savings.

Management of the Department's Data Centers at Contractor Sites (DOE/IG-0803, 

October 2008). The audit found that the Department had not taken advantage of energy 

savings through consolidation and efficient hardware technologies. In particular, data centers 

duplicated common services provided such as e-mail, data storage, and libraries. Four of six 

sites made only limited use of more efficient hardware technologies that conserve energy and 

reduce operational costs. The audit identified potential annual savings of $2.3 million 

through consolidation and use of more efficient hardware technologies in the data centers.
Appendix 4

Page 11 Management Comments
Appendix 4 (continued)

Page 12 Management Comments
Appendix 4 (continued)

Page 13 Management Comments
Appendix 4 (continued)

Page 14 Management Comments
Appendix 4 (continued)

Page 15 Management Comments
Appendix 4 (continued)

Page 16 Management Comments
Appendix 4 (continued)

Page 17 Management Comments
IG Report No. DOE/IG-0835

CUSTOMER RESPONSE FORM

The Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the usefulness of its 

products. We wish to make our reports as responsive as possible to our customers' requirements, 

and, therefore, ask that you consider sharing your thoughts with us. On the back of this form, 

you may suggest improvements to enhance the effectiveness of future reports. Please include 

answers to the following questions if they are applicable to you:

1. What additional background information about the selection, scheduling, scope, or 

procedures of the inspection would have been helpful to the reader in understanding this 

report?

2. What additional information related to findings and recommendations could have been 

included in the report to assist management in implementing corrective actions?

3. What format, stylistic, or organizational changes might have made this report's overall 

message more clear to the reader?

4. What additional actions could the Office of Inspector General have taken on the issues 

discussed in this report which would have been helpful?

5. Please include your name and telephone number so that we may contact you should we have 

any questions about your comments.

Name Date 

Telephone Organization 

When you have completed this form, you may telefax it to the Office of Inspector General at 

(202) 586-0948, or you may mail it to:

Office of Inspector General (IG-1)

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

ATTN: Customer Relations

If you wish to discuss this report or your comments with a staff member of the Office of 

Inspector General, please contact Felicia Jones (202) 253-2162.
This page intentionally left blank.
The Office of Inspector General wants to make the distribution of its reports as customer friendly and cost

effective as possible. Therefore, this report will be available electronically through the Internet at the 

following address:

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General Home Page

http://www.ig.energy.gov

Your comments would be appreciated and can be provided on the Customer Response Form

attached to the report.