25 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of

766 Pages·2010·44 MB·English

Description of document: 25 National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit
reports, 1985 - 1996

Requested date: 10-July-2009

Released date: 25-March-2010

Posted date: 26-April-2010

Titles of documents: See release letter

Date/date range of document: 25-October-1985 – 22-February-1996

Source of document: Office of Inspector General
NASA Headquarters
Room 8V69
300 E Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20546
E-mail:[email protected]
Fax: [phone]
Online FOIA request form

The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials
made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its
principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however,
there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and
its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or
damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the
governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from
government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns
about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question.
GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website.
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
N~
,
Office of Inspector General .
, .
Washington. DC 20546-0001
MAR 2 5 2D1O
SUBJECT: Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) Request
I am responding to your July 10,2009, request for 27 audit reports released between
October 1985 and February 1996, which reports are not available on our website.
My initial determination is to provide redacted copies of the audit reports. Individuals'
signatures are being withheld under FOIA exemption (b)(6) to protect personal privacy.
5 U.S.c. § 552(b)(6). The released reports are:
A-AR-89-00 1, Reuse of Computer Tapes.
A-GO-87-004, Space Telescope Science Institute.
A-GO-91-007, Wallops Flight Facility Balloon Program.
A-JP-88-001, Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer Project.
JP-96-001, Cassini Program Management.
A-JS-87-003, Contingency Planning for the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.
A-JS-87-005, Space Transportation System Operations Contract (STSOC) NAS9-18000.
A-JS-88-004, Alternative Sources of Electricity.
A-JS-88-008, Super Guppy Operations.
A-JS-89-012, Magnetic Data Tape Usage and Recertification.
A-JS-91-008, Orbiter Production Phasedown Activities.
JS-93-006, Space Shuttle Payload Operations.
JS-94-002, Extended Duration Orbiters.
A-KE-87-006, Contingency Planning for Orbiter Emergency Landings.
KE-93-005, Acquisition of Orbiter Spares.
KE-95-008, Selected Security Risks to the Space Shuttle and Crew.
A-LA-84-302 Management and Utilization of Wind Tunnels.
A-LA-85-004: Aircraft Landing Dynamics Facility.
A-LE-88-002, Disposition of Atlas and Cen~aur Property.
LE-93-004, LeRC 50th Anniversary ExpendItures.
A-MA-86-003, Audit of Selected Aspects of Hubble Space Telescope Award Fees
A-MA-87-007, Selected Aspects of the Space Transportation System National Resource
Protection Program.
A-MA-89-002, Martin Anomaly Reporting System.
A-MA-90-005, Advanced Launch System Budget, Stennis Space Center.
A-MA-92-003, Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF).
Two reports, A-JS-87-007, Orbiter Maintenance and Repair, and A-JS-87-004,
Management and Control of Lunar Matter, could not be located.
You have the right to appeal this initial determination to the Inspector General. Under 14
CFR § 1206.605(b), the appeal must: (1) be in writing; (2) be addressed to the Inspector
General, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; (3) be identified clearly on the
envelope and in the letter as an "Appeal under the Freedom ofInfonnation Act"; (4)
include a copy of the request for the Agency record and a copy of the contested initial
detennination; (5) to the extent possible, state the reasons why you believes the contested
initial detennination should be reversed; and (6) be sent to the Inspector General within
30 calendar days of the date of receipt of the initial detennination.
~frh~
~mMorrison
Assistant Inspector General for Auditing
OIG FOlA Officer -- Audits
Enclosures

Office of Inspector Gen~(al
Ames Re~afch Center
Moffett Flelo, California 94035
Novernl:;ler 7, 1989
TO: Director of Admi,nist.ration, Am.esRes&arCh Center
FROM: OIG Cent.er Director, Ames Research center
SUBJECT: SutveyReport on Reuse af Computer
'l'~pe$
A.mElIs .. Research Cen tar
A-J\R":S'S--OOl
The Oftic·Qof Im.pec:tor General. ha$·CQ .' ~et(, $U~jQ'
y
reuse of co~utEJ,rtapE!$: ,at }!anesR.esearc~,c~ri. .,f~~t~
[email protected]!i'accpr(iancewith the .Gu,lth;Q;t:ltt::~n¢l ~~~.
contained inNA!JA !1anage,martt InstrUction 9~3.0(.,liji(1_ted
1980. '
A discus s:i.on draft rePort was provl.ded t9A.Rcon AUgust 3..Q
I
1989, and an ex;it.c(;mlerence was held, ·QtI;$",pe$~e:t. :1,5', 19.fi9.A
draft report was su~it;ted to the Centerdn October' 17,1989 .
..b ,RC·s formaJ. response to the draft re.port. rec&lvad NovelUber J •.
1989, outlined measures afld a~tions which Wel."e r*#.sp()ns'ive tot-b. •
recommendatiQns. . These comments dEEl'Pt'esen idt$~ eh .
reccmmenQ.~tion".and are included in their e .
Of .. thefillal,feport,TheO~G does,. ryotplsl'l.>
follow-UiP aet.ly;i~ies with regard to: ,thEvtmpI
correct:!ve ~<tl:ona,! put requests notlflcl!ition
con$ide;rs the recomm~nda'tions Closed.
,..p'
OBJECTIV25 .. sgllPg
The', s:Qt'VeY'Ol::)Jectives Were to evalUate th-a p011c1.ea:an(l
proceduregfprdispositiOn of used el~ctro~1c dataproceS$i~
tapes at, ARC. Swcific areas of emphctsiS includedpossibJ.e .
savings availaole to ARC through the reuse of computer tape.s. and
the disposal of tapes containing classified information.
The survey scope included a review of the cost and quantity
of computer tapes used at ARC, the costs of. rec.ertificat1oh. ttb,o
NASA Phy's1cal Security Handbook (NHB 1620. 3B) and ARC procedures
I
for dis.posinq of computer tapes containing classified
i.nformat.ion. The survey did nat address the policies, proc:ed~l:'es.
practices, an<i internal controls applicable to purcnas1ng new
compuc.er tapas or the adequacy of standards for recertified tapes.
The survey the period Jal?ua.ry 1. 1988.
~overe4 tl\~OU9.:11
December: 31 , 19&a~ Ourillg this period. ARC iss'Ued appt-o?<:tmate:ly,
28,000 new CQrnpl,lter tapes C}.nd .cartridges to ARC u.$er$~ at a totll\l
cost ot approximately $291.000. . '
The aud1twa~ pe~toi:med itl aCCQr~~ncew·itn.gEme;iaJ.l:y .a~e~pt;e4.
Government audi,ting standardQ, and incl~~d.$t,1Qh SXam1~~t:t'~rl:S'~~
'Casts of '~n~pliCC:l~le reC,'orqsand doc~'t\ta~ion as we~~ ':QD:$fdEu:"e"
necessary in the·circumstances. Excel>t for the <::ondd.;t1~1'1$
rePorted below umiar "Survey" Resul ts." the internal' con·trGls
tested were considere4 satisfa~tory. . .. ,
BA~KGROUbfD
used
m~g:~~t,t¢
•.· .. "
T~Wt')i
sed-a:i
e~sei) )t~', ... .. ... ..
are no loh~t\n. .' atF the
Reutiliaatipn Materials.
SURVEY RESULTS
R§ce;:tificat.t2~of Ta~§! -The re:sltlt$ cttne s'ftv.y
disc.losed that thfi.te<;tertifil:;:a'tion.o~mag-n.rl!it1c .C:o#LptIt~~ td~ is
nct c\l~rentlY apra(lt1eal alternative tothe~E:n~sfil:a!:/JUlW .
maqneti~lComputer. tapes. Recert.iticationco1l1'I:pE¢ 'practiq~
alterl'\a~+,v~ if tn.~. c.Qs;q~t'l~W; tapel1(p. ',l:;":t1Y/"e~ '. ,.~~,
¢apes" )\~~@~:an·j,,~r:.~$eSt and/or ' e tt\1mij~~Qf •.t .M'~:.Qa~,,'
ARC sub~t:ajtrf~ll. ~i!l~$. " . "..,;. .. . F;",·;;.;',:,;";:·,.·,.·,,;;,,,:
of tij,e 26.000 new c:::omputer tapes and' cal:'tridges i~$ut;\d~o
users during th'i! 12 month periQd ended Oec .• ~e,r.31., 1988. ab9ut
15. 500 were . recert,U;.iab.ll&. the total ···ha's~,pl:';t;C:$. o~· tl'i.-'4.e:
ti;lp,e.s wa$~~j,lt; $ OOQ; Or ~n· ave . ,f,~pt;.)lJ;~ .$lQ ,,~() (\l~~'h 1'tle
t
soGlQa..rdS' if1 ,Ce;nt~~\'lq$rcr,;1.n~;' 4,l;'st:e'riifit;~1J;1on
atJai~)i£1#1o1~;l,' ¥ '$ t¢Lo 10l :ece:rta:pte·~~f· y. $(\tI.fItt;sh to. r 1.1 a.(tb ~a:e, a( zS'C1U'l<lt)·W 'OB.f t hat·
a,pprqx ... .. .. '35 t040iperce~t Q;t tll_tap9. $ur1Jl~,tl'la·.
reeert.t.t::lc(l~;1or,l proces;s:a~a~~l>':eeertj.~i~~) ~CIft.$~ri:~. tb:al:~
l!?hippinq cost.s to GS:FC)W6tlldapproxima~e $LOOp.J:t;ap8:§tac:n way,
and the low tape surviVal t"ate, the rec~rtif1cation of ~mputer
'Capes does not. appear :to' off~r significant savings at this time.
Also. was disclosed that many ARC users are already erasing and
reus.ingthair own tapes. The survey found no indications that
classified tapes were being reused.
In addition to' tapes, ARC uses al;>out S,SQO reeertifia1)le
#3480 cartridges each year. at a new CQJ3t of aixlueS26,O&O. The
average cost of a new cartridge is about $4.70. ARCha4 no
S1n,c~
experience in recertifyin~cartridges. other· centers were
contacted to determitla tnEair experience with cartridges. GSi'Cwas
found co be cons.:i.dering obtaining the' necessary equipment, Dutat;
the time had no capability to recertify cartridges. aspc's
ect.ed cost to recertify was estimated at $2.00 percartridg~.
was found to be recertifying cartridges under a local
contract. but had insu(ficient experience to determi.ne the
cartridge survival rate.
If ARC sent its recertitiable cartridges to GSPC and then
enjoyed a lOOper~ent recertification rate, ARC wQuld stJ.ll. $ave
only about $12, aoo per year through the reuse of it$ cartridf,le.a
($4,70 ~ ($ 2. OOrecert:iUcation cost per tape; + $.44 roundtrip
ppstage, ARC to GSFC) x 5500 cartridge, per Year). nue to t~
aoathe
s1l\allamountoft;lossibl~s;avings uncert~~>cartridg~
~r\lrvi val rate, wedoqotrecornmeridchang.aa Intll.:t$areat at,t.bi..a
time. Howev~r,. if. tne.~~vel ot .~li!a9~ arthe . h~se pri.¢~qlri
these cartridges .. ·~ncrea.,$e$ •. we,. sugges~ that. • ,A. , ... etermtn$·.w~th.~;·
the recertiticatiP110t ca~tridge tapes ls waJ"X'.t;i~l;ed. ",
0 1 . . . , The di't. . <:U;sci:ose<i t.ha~<~
dispos£ onofuaed tapestbat .
contain claSisi.fi,ed;~ata. 'the NASA Physical .secu.i:tty a~.rlt'bq.o~{:_
1620.38. requires that tbe method of destt'u¢,tion s$l.ect~dmil$t.
ensure that recognition or rec01'1strUCt1onof the cl.aaatfied
information or material. in whole or in pa;rt, isma(:t.i~im;iosl:liJ:~l,.e.
Results at. the survey discl,osed that four or ftveboxes of
classified plastic materials' (microfiche and C,Qmputer tapes} were
recently burned by the Center. It was lat:$r fOund that the
fUrnace used. to bUrn these items was not; .certi,fiedby the
Ep.vironmental Protee~ion Age,ncY for t,l:leburniil,\1ofpla;fI;tic:s.
Al so •.. A}1J';. <1()e,~r. not, •..." aXl; .~ :plrQv.d 1;ape. '. . un$t.. .... . wtt
anapproyed fuz:nace' .... ' a~ degaussing" .. . canfl.9t<4e)1
cla6sifi~d comp1;It;;er . tap~St at ARC, in accor anCe w$tb ;~p~l;c. .'
re~ulat1ons •.1 hesUr¥eyalso d,i.sclosedthat.the materlalai;>ul:'tle4
had acCumulil,ted over ·a·l1$1;10d of several¥~~~S~ '. . When cl
tapes de~i~nat~d tordeatt'u,ction have bee,n:stoted folt. . .....
periodsoftJ.me., \:l').e pQssihtlity- is increased th~~' th~1nfcil::lnal1;lon..
may be compr~:.';~is~d" . .
RECOMMENDATJ,QN
We recommend that ARC;
1. Destroy all classified tapes deSignated for destruction,
in a timely manner.
MANAGBMENT RESPONSE
Concur. In the absence of specific guidance on the
definition of "timely," the Center will commit to destroy all
classified tapes within three months of their deSignation for
destruction.
.3
The matter of designation for destruction by
custodians of class tapes presents a different. problem. In
the majority of instances. such designation is a purely subjective
decision to be m(!de by the cust.odian, or the originatin9 program
security officials. This fact shOUld not relieve the Center from
responsibLlity fostering appropriate procedures and for
encQuraging review of stored classified tapes.
Each periodic Center-wide inventory of classified materials
will include actions to encourage the retirement. of items no
longer needed.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend tnat ARC:
..
.. ...
2. Burn or erase ·clas$ified cQin~te~ .ta~s ~nl;y itl
acc;ordance with applicable regulations:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Concur with t:he recommendation. Suggest a restatement to
broaden and strengthen its effect.
In lieu of "burn or erase' substitute "destroy or erase."
'The NASA Physical Security HanObook,NitB 1620.JB. does not require
the burning of computer tapes. !t requires that the method, of
,jestruction ensure that recognition or recon$truction ot the
information, in whole or in part. is precluWia(i. This cat:l;b$dqne-
be
in an approved furnace. but. it can alsQ done iriany ntimber o·f ....... ' ...•
approved shredders' or pulveri~ers. " ,:.,
The Center agrees to comply with 8Pplic2lble regulat10Jls by
properlydastroYing classified tapes marke<$for destruction. 'this
will be ac;:c·om:plished in the near term by the ,Soo\1rityOperati:otla
In
Office using existing loW capacity shred4ers~ . fti,soalYe017
1990, the Center plans to initiate procurerttent· 0'1; a leu;'ge. hig:bly
capable unit which shreds the tapes then crUsl'le$t.heresu~tant
material. This will allow for on-alte destruction of large
volumes of th.is material in a timely way. . Itwl11 be sized to
handle the destruction requirements of bothAmess1tes now and in
::he ft"ture.
ADDITIONAL AUDIT COMMENTS
We agree that the Center's suggested restatement satisfies
the intent of the recowmendation.
4
No further review of the matters discussed In this memorandum
appears warranted at this time.
"', -
D, avid L. Gandrud
5
National Aeronautics and
Space AdministratIon
AMomiGi&e~ R Feiesleda rCcahW Coermntae r9 4035 R£CE~ V ~.?"\ Am. I'.D , IX;.' , -,. .
. . ,
NOy
.$
lWaomct v' '
llEtfE,1IAi '"
RlIPlVt" AtlndA:200-23 November 3, 1989
TO: Director, Center OrG, Ames Research Center
FR)\t. DarreH E. Wilcox, Direotor of Administration
'tapo '
, SUBJECT: OIG Survey Report, A-AR .. 89 .. 001, R$U$lof CfOrnputet
. ' . .
. ,
. . . .'. .'. , . . . ", ,",
~
We have reviewed 'your recommendations, and offer .the.,folliiwing".n&sPO:n~~:'·,"·.
Recommendation No.1
Destroy· an classified' tapes deSignated for destruction, in. a timely
manner.
Cinter BfjROnli
"fime
Concur. In the absence of specific gujdance on the-difitl'tiQrt, of IY''' ,
the' Center will commit to' destroy all classifiedtap.s withl,rt three .
months of their designation for destruction. ' .
The matter of, timely design~tionfor destruction by Qustod,j_flS. of
classified' tapefS .p re$8nts a din.~t problem. fn •t nei n"UljO:rity,. of •..... ..
instances. such designation. is a purely subjectiv& d~i$iOntQ.be. '. mar4e'PY
the custodian, or the originating programsec~ritY. . offiGl$ISi Ttlisfact. .
appropriale ..
should not relieve the Center from responsibility forfo$t~dn9
procedures and for encouraging periodic review of stored (';Iassitiect' tapes ..
Each periodic. Center-wide inventory of classified materials will include
actions to encourage the retirement of items no longer needed.
A-l