IG-01-042

AUDIT 

REPORT SAFETY OF LIFTING DEVICES AND 

EQUIPMENT AT STENNIS SPACE CENTER 

September 28, 2001

 

 National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
Additional Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, contact the Assistant Inspector General for Audits at 

(202) 358-1232, or visit www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/issuedaudits.html.

Suggestions for Future Audits

To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Assistant Inspector General for 

Audits. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to: 

 Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

 Code W 

 NASA Headquarters 

 Washington, DC 20546-0001 

NASA Hotline

To report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement contact the NASA Hotline at (800) 424-9183, 

(800) 535-8134 (TDD), or at www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html#form; or write to the 

NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, L’Enfant Plaza Station, Washington, DC 20026. 

The identity of each writer and caller can be kept confidential, upon request, to the extent 

permitted by law. 

Reader Survey 

Please complete the reader survey at the end of this report or at 

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html. 

Acronyms 

CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System 

DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency 

FMEA Failure Mode and Effects Analysis 

FOSC Facility Operations Support Contractor 

LDE Lifting Devices and Equipment 

MSS Mississippi Space Services 

NACB North American Crane Bureau 

NSS/GO NASA Safety Standard/Ground Operations 

OI Operating Instruction 

PM Preventive Maintenance 

S&MA Safety and Mission Assurance 

SPG Stennis Procedures and Guidelines
W September 28, 2001 

TO: A/Administrator 

FROM: W/Inspector General 

SUBJECT: INFORMATION: Safety of Lifting Devices and Equipment 

at Stennis Space Center 

 Report Number IG-01-042 

The NASA Office of Inspector General has completed an audit of Safety of Lifting 

Devices and Equipment (LDE)1

 at the John C. Stennis Space Center (Stennis). As early 

as 1997, the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) began reporting 

safety deficiencies with the Stennis LDE program. Since then, other parties, both internal 

and external to Stennis, have reported safety deficiencies within the LDE program. Our 

audit confirmed many of those issues and focused on five major areas of concern. 

Specifically, we found that Stennis did not safely perform critical lifts,2 operators and 

riggers were not properly trained and certified, operators used cranes with safety 

deficiencies, and crane maintenance and inspections were inadequate. Despite being 

advised of many of those conditions in mishap reports, independent inspections, and 

internal assessments, significant deficiencies in LDE management at Stennis continued to 

exist. As a result, during 1999-2000, Stennis removed 16 critical lift cranes from service 

and reported two lifting mishaps3 that resulted in equipment and facility damages with 

estimated costs of more than $550,000. 

Although Stennis has made some improvements in the safety of its LDE program, 

additional management emphasis and improvements are needed. Unless Stennis makes 

those improvements, the potential exists for harm to personnel and assets essential to 

NASA's space propulsion program and for future monetary losses. 

 

1

 LDE include overhead and mobile cranes, derricks, hoists, and hoist-supported personnel lifting devices. 2

 Lifts of high-dollar items such as NASA’s space hardware, one-of-a-kind test articles, major facility 

components, or personnel are considered critical lifts. 

3

 The mishaps occurred on June 23, 1999, and November 5, 2000, during use of the B-Test Stand main 

derrick. The 1999 mishap occurred during a Boeing lift of a commercial engine. The main 200-ton hook 

traveled upward until the lower sheave block contacted the upper-fixed sheave block. The two-blocking 

incident resulted in approximately $350,000 in damages. The 2000 mishap occurred during a LockheedMartin lift when the rigging for a man-lift failed. The man-lift was destroyed after falling approximately 

80 feet. The mishap resulted in more than $200,000 in damages. 
2 

Background 

NASA established safety requirements for the design, testing, inspection, personnel 

certification, maintenance, and use of LDE at NASA Centers in the NASA Safety 

Standard/Ground Operations (NSS/GO) 1740.9B, "Safety Standard for LDE," dated 

November 1991.4

 Compliance with the standard is mandatory for all NASA-owned and 

contractor-supplied equipment used in support of Agency operations at NASA 

installations. 

The NASA S&MA Office performs process verification reviews at the Centers to 

determine compliance with the LDE safety standard. Headquarters’ S&MA officials 

reported recurring deficiencies in the Stennis LDE program during process verification 

reviews completed in 1997 and 1999 and a follow-up review in 2000. In response to the 

1999 review, Stennis appointed an LDE program manager and hired an independent 

consultant to inspect 18 critical lift cranes. Subsequent to the independent inspection and 

the 2000 process verification follow-up review, Stennis removed 16 of the cranes from 

service. Stennis returned 14 of the cranes to service after completing corrective action 

and elected to remove the remaining 2 cranes from service indefinitely. 

Recommendations 

We recommended that Stennis take the necessary actions to comply with Agency safety 

standards for LDE operations. Our recommendations specifically addressed critical 

lifting operations, operator and rigger training and certifications, preventive maintenance, 

and inspections. We also recommended that Stennis increase Government surveillance 

of LDE operations and implement a system to track and resolve previously reported 

findings and recommendations related to crane operations and equipment deficiencies. 

Finally, we recommended that Stennis prohibit the use of cranes with safety deficiencies. 

These actions will help ensure that Stennis and its contractors do not compromise the 

safety of personnel and will reduce the overall risk of loss or damage to flight hardware, 

equipment, and facilities that are critical to NASA's propulsion programs. 

Management’s Response and OIG Evaluation

Stennis concurred with 13 of the recommendations and partially concurred with 3 

recommendations for which it proposed alternative corrective actions. Pending receipt of 

additional information, we consider management’s planned actions responsive for all 16 

recommendations. The corrective actions should result in the LDE program at Stennis 

 

4

 NASA is revising NSS/GO-1740.9B and will finalize the revised document as NASA Standard 8719.9. 
3 

being operated in a safe manner and in compliance with Agency standards. We have 

requested that Stennis provide us with additional documentation regarding the proposed 

corrective actions including additional details and planned completion dates. 

Details on the status of the recommendations are in the recommendations section of the 

report. 

[original signed by] 

Roberta L. Gross 

Enclosure 

Final Report on Audit of Safety of Lifting Devices and Equipment at Stennis Space 

Center
W September 28, 2001 

TO: AA/Acting Director, John C. Stennis Space Center 

Q/Associate Administrator for Safety and Mission Assurance 

FROM: W/Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

SUBJECT: Final Report on Safety of Lifting Devices and Equipment at Stennis Space 

Center 

Assignment Number A-00-048-00 

 Report Number IG-01-042 

Enclosed please find the subject final report. Please refer to the Executive Summary for 

the overall audit results. Our evaluation of your response is incorporated into the body of 

the report. Pending receipt of additional information, we consider management’s 

proposed actions responsive for each of the report recommendations. We request that 

management provide additional comments and planned completion dates for each 

recommendation by November 27, 2001. The recommendations will remain open for 

reporting purposes until corrective actions are complete. Please notify us when actions 

have been completed on the recommendations, including the extent of testing performed 

to ensure corrective actions are effective. The final report distribution is in Appendix E. 

We appreciate the courtesies extended to the audit staff. If you have questions 

concerning the report, please contact Mr. Kevin Carson, Deputy Assistant Inspector 

General for Audits, at (301) 286-0498, or Ms. Sandy Massey, Program Director, Safety 

and Technology Audits, at (321) 867-4057. 

[original signed by] 

Alan J. Lamoreaux 

Enclosure 
2 

cc: 

AI/Associate Deputy Administrator 

B/Acting Chief Financial Officer 

B/Comptroller 

BF/Director, Financial Management Division 

G/General Counsel 

H/Associate Administrator for Procurement 

JM/Director, Management Assessment Division 

M/Associate Administrator for Space Flight 
SAFETY OF LIFTING DEVICES 

AND EQUIPMENT AT STENNIS SPACE CENTER 
Contents 

Executive Summary, i 

Introduction, 1 

Findings and Recommendations, 2 

Finding A. Critical Lift Safety, 2

Finding B. Training and Certifying Operators and Riggers, 10 

 Finding C. Crane Operation Safety, 16 

Finding D. Preventive Maintenance for Cranes, 21 

 Finding E. Wire Rope Inspections, 28 

Appendix A - Objectives, Scope, and Methodology, 31 

Appendix B - Summary of Process Verification Reviews, 33

Appendix C - North American Crane Bureau Inspection Results, 34 

Appendix D - Management’s Response, 35 

Appendix E - Report Distribution, 39
NASA Office of Inspector General 

IG-01-042 September 28, 2001 

 A-00-48-00 

Safety of Lifting Devices and 

Equipment at Stennis Space Center 

Executive Summary 

Background. Three major contractors at Stennis operate and/or maintain LDE for 

NASA. Mississippi Space Services (MSS)5 is the Center's facility operating services 

contractor and has responsibility for the inspection and maintenance of all LDE on site. 

MSS also operates some LDE and is responsible for training and certifying all LDE 

operators. Lockheed Martin Space Operations-Stennis Programs (Lockheed-Martin) is 

the test and technical support services contractor that performs lifts of experimental 

engines and commercial space flight hardware to support operational testing. The 

Boeing Company's-Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power (Boeing) is the propulsion test 

contractor responsible for lifting, testing, and certifying Space Shuttle main engines for 

flight. 

The NSS/GO 1740.9B contains the minimum safety requirements for the design, testing, 

inspection, personnel certification, maintenance, and use of LDE at NASA Centers. 

Compliance with NSS/GO 1740.9B safety requirements is mandatory for all NASAowned and contractor-supplied equipment used in support of Agency operations at 

NASA installations. Center safety organizations are responsible for implementing and 

enforcing the standard.

Objectives. The overall audit objective was to determine whether Stennis and its 

contractors properly managed the safety of the LDE program. Specifically, we 

determined whether: 

• Stennis safely performed critical lifts, 

• crane operators were properly trained and certified, 

• personnel operated cranes in a safe manner, 

• MSS complied with maintenance requirements, and 

• MSS performed adequate wire rope6

 inspections. 

Appendix A contains further details on the audit objectives, scope, and methodology. 

 

5

 MSS is a joint venture of Computer Sciences Corporation and the IT Group, Inc. 

6 A wire rope is a number of multi-wired strands that are wrapped around a core member. LDE primarily 

rely on wire ropes to lift and suspend their loads; thus, the reliability of wire ropes is critical to successful 

lifts. If the strength of a wire rope is compromised, safety of the lift is also compromised. 
ii 

Results of Audit. Stennis and its three major contractors did not properly manage LDE 

program safety. Specifically, (1) Stennis did not safely perform critical lifts (Finding A), 

(2) operators and riggers were not properly trained and certified (Finding B), 

(3) operators used cranes with safety deficiencies (Finding C), (4) crane maintenance was 

inadequate (Finding D), and (5) wire rope inspections were inadequate (Finding E). 

Stennis had been advised of many of these conditions in mishap reports, independent 

inspections, and internal assessments; yet, significant deficiencies in LDE management 

continued to exist. As a result, Stennis removed 16 critical lift cranes from service 

during 1999-2000. During that same period, Stennis also reported two lifting mishaps 

that resulted in equipment and facility damages with estimated costs of more than 

$550,000. 

Stennis made some improvements in LDE program safety in 2000. Specifically, the 

Center designated an LDE program manager, drafted an LDE program plan, and made 

needed repairs on some of its cranes. Despite those positive steps, the LDE program 

requires additional improvements. Unless Stennis makes additional improvements, the 

potential exists for harm to personnel and assets that are essential to NASA's space 

propulsion program and for future monetary losses.

Recommendations. We recommended that Stennis take the necessary actions to comply 

with Agency safety standards for critical lifting operations, operator and rigger training 

and certifications, maintenance, and inspections. Stennis should also revise its safety 

procedures and guidelines to include requirements for critical lifting operations that are 

unique to the Center. In addition, management should request increased Government 

surveillance of crane operations and implement a system to track and resolve previously 

reported findings and recommendations related to crane operations and equipment 

deficiencies. Finally, Stennis should prohibit the use of cranes with safety deficiencies. 

Management’s Response. Management concurred or partially concurred with the 

report’s 16 recommendations. Management proposed alternative corrective actions for 

those recommendations for which it partially concurred. Management’s planned actions 

for all the recommendations are responsive. We request additional information on the 

proposed corrective actions, including additional details and planned completion dates 

(see the respective recommendations in the Findings section of the report). The complete 

text of the response is in Appendix D. 
Introduction 

The NASA Office of S&MA, located at Headquarters, performs process verification 

reviews at each Center on a cyclical basis. The purpose of the reviews is to assess the 

effectiveness and efficiency of S&MA processes and management practices implemented 

at each Center. The Office of S&MA determines the stability and capability of each 

Center's safety, reliability, and quality assurance functions based on the results of the 

process verification reviews. 

NASA S&MA officials performed process verification reviews at Stennis in 1997 and 

1999 and performed a follow-up review in 2000. The reports contained recurring 

findings regarding LDE. Appendix B summarizes the results of the three reviews. 

As a result of the 1999 process verification review, Stennis appointed a safety official as 

the LDE program manager.7

 To get an overview of the status of all LDE, the program 

manager contracted with the North American Crane Bureau (NACB) to perform an 

inspection of 18 cranes8

 (of which 16 were classified as critical lift) for compliance with 

general industry standards. The LDE program manager and an MSS safety official 

(concurrent with the NACB) inspected the same 18 cranes for compliance with NASA 

safety standards. In May 2000, both the NACB and the LDE program manager issued 

reports detailing the inspection results. Appendix C summarizes the NACB's findings. 

The Stennis LDE program manager's May 2000 inspection report stated that none of the 

18 inspected cranes complied with industry standards or NSS/GO-1740.9B. The report 

cited multiple deficiencies across the Center including inadequate maintenance, lack of 

documentation, and failure to establish and maintain a system for supporting LDE. The 

report concluded that, "some of the equipment inspected indicates the potential for 

catastrophic failures that could dramatically impact current and future test programs." 

In June 2000, the NASA S&MA Office conducted a follow-up review and again reported 

serious examples of safety noncompliance and management shortcomings with LDE. As 

a result, Stennis removed the 16 critical lift cranes from service. Stennis subsequently 

completed corrective actions on 14 cranes and returned them to service. There was no 

current program requirement for the remaining two cranes. Stennis continues to address 

other concerns identified by S&MA officials in the process verification reviews.

 

7

 In July 2000, Stennis reassigned the LDE program manager responsibility to the Center Operations 

Directorate. 

8

 The 18 cranes selected for review represented about 20 percent of the total LDE inventory at Stennis. 
2 

Findings and Recommendations

Finding A. Critical Lift Safety 

Lockheed-Martin, MSS, and Boeing did not safely perform critical lifts. Specifically, 

contractors routinely conducted critical lifts using noncritical lift procedures. In addition, 

Stennis had not completed hazard analyses and markings for its critical lift cranes or its 

inventory of slings.9

 Critical lifts were unsafe because Stennis had not (1) complied with 

the critical lift requirements of NSS/GO-1740.9B, (2) established critical lift 

requirements for its Center-unique lifting operations, or (3) provided adequate safety 

surveillance for critical lifts. As a result, Stennis and its contractors compromised 

personnel safety, destroyed Government property, and increased the overall risk of loss 

or damage to equipment and facilities. 

Safety Requirements for Performing Critical Lifts 

NASA Requirements. NSS/GO-1740.9B, paragraph 101(c)(1), describes critical lifts as 

those that are: 

. . . special, high dollar items, such as spacecraft, one-of-a-kind articles, 

or major facility components, etc., whose loss would have serious 

programmatic impact. Critical lifts also include operations with special 

personnel and equipment safety concerns beyond normal lifting 

hazards. Each installation or program shall develop a process to 

identify critical lifting operations and lifting devices/equipment that 

must meet critical lift requirements. The results of the process shall be 

documented and approved, as a minimum, by the installation NASA 

Safety Director. In addition, specific written procedures shall be 

prepared and followed for all critical lifts, and individuals with a 

designated safety responsibility (NASA or Contractor) shall be present 

to monitor critical lift operations for compliance with this document. 

Stennis Requirements. Stennis Procedures and Guidelines (SPG) 8715.1, "Stennis 

Space Center Safety and Health Procedures and Guidelines," January 27, 1998, 

establishes procedures and guidelines for all NASA operations and basic safety 

requirements for Stennis contractors. The SPG states that Stennis lifting operations are 

often one-of-a-kind and special and involve high-dollar items that contain hazardous 

materials or have special safety requirements. 

Contractor Performance of Critical Lifts 

Lockheed-Martin, MSS, and Boeing routinely performed lifts of personnel and assets 

requiring special lifting procedures. However, the contractors did not follow safety 

requirements designed to ensure that critical and/or hazardous lifting operations were 

performed in the safest possible manner. 

 

9

 A sling is a device used to securely hold the object to be hoisted. Slings can be constructed of wire rope, 

alloy steel chain, metal mesh, or natural or synthetic fiber. 
3 

Lockheed-Martin. Lockheed-Martin may have avoided a serious mishap that resulted in 

property damage and equipment loss had it complied with NASA's critical lift 

requirements. On November 5, 2000, Lockheed-Martin used the main derrick to raise a 

man-lift10 from the eleventh to the sixteenth level of the B-Test Stand.11 LockheedMartin operated the crane and rigged the man-lift. According to the mishap investigation 

team, the rigging failed because Lockheed-Martin used undersized slings and an 

improper rigging configuration, and as a result, the man-lift fell about 80 feet to the sixth 

level. Lockheed-Martin had successfully lifted the man-lift the day before the mishap 

and twice the day of the mishap using the same improper slings and configuration. Each 

of those lifts had an extremely high risk of catastrophic failure and potential for loss of 

life and property. 

The man-lift, which will cost NASA about $130,000 to replace, was completely 

destroyed, and the test stand sustained an estimated $40,000 in damage. NASA incurred 

additional costs of about $33,000 for other incidental expenses such as environmental 

cleanup, removal of the destroyed man-lift, and minor repairs to a damaged Government 

vehicle.12 Figures 1 and 2 show the destroyed man-lift on the sixth level of the test stand. 

 Figure 1. View of destroyed man-lift from the Figure 2. Overhead view of destroyed man-lift 

 sixth level 

Although the mishap caused no personnel injuries, the risk of injury or death was high. 

Only minutes before the mishap, three employees were in the area where the man-lift 

landed. An investigation team recommended that Stennis review its lifting program and 

equipment for compliance with the NSS/GO and SPG and coordinate lifts with respective 

safety offices. The mishap clearly shows the importance of properly classifying critical 

lifts in accordance with safety standards. Lockheed-Martin may have prevented the 

mishap if the company had complied with NASA's critical lift requirements. 

 

10 A man-lift is a type of mobile equipment designed to lift personnel to work on elevated structures and 

equipment.

11 The B-Test Stand is a 17-story structure where propulsion systems such as rocket engines are mounted 

for static testing. 

12 Stennis requested that Lockheed-Martin reimburse NASA approximately $132,000 for mishap damages, 

to include market value for the man-lift, rental costs for a temporary man-lift, test stand damages, and 

incidental costs such as environmental clean up and removal of debris. 
4 

MSS. MSS also did not properly classify critical lifts or follow NASA or MSS 

procedures when those lifts met the NSS/GO critical lift requirements. For example, on 

November 2, 2000, an operator lifted workers on the B-Test Stand using a mobile crane 

with an attached personnel basket. Although NSS/GO-1740.9B and MSS S&MA 

instructions require contractors to perform personnel lifts using critical lift procedures, 

MSS did not properly classify the lift as critical. MSS also did not prepare specific 

written lift procedures or require monitoring of lifts by NASA or contractor safety 

personnel. Although MSS was aware of the NASA requirements and had established 

internal procedures, it did not properly classify or perform personnel lifts. 

Boeing. Boeing did not follow required safety procedures for its critical lifts. From 

September 1, 2000, through February 28, 2001, Boeing classified 26 Space Shuttle main 

engines and/or engine component lifts as critical and used a qualified move director13 or 

move conductor14 when transporting and lifting engines or engine components. The 

NSS/GO requires that designated safety representatives be present during critical lifts or 

that the contractor receives NASA approval, in the form of a waiver, for an exception to 

this practice. Generally, neither NASA nor Boeing safety personnel were present for 

these lifts. Further, the move directors and conductors were not safety representatives, 

although they had received safety-related training. Boeing also had not submitted a 

waiver to obtain the Agency's approval for deviation of the requirement to have safety 

representatives present. Consequently, NASA had no assurance that Boeing 

accomplished the engine lifts in the safest possible manner. 

Hazard Analyses, Special Markings, and Inventories for Critical Lift Equipment 

Stennis did not comply with the NSS/GO or the SPG requirements for hazard analyses,15

special markings, and inventories for critical lift equipment. The NACB, NASA Office 

of S&MA, and the 2000 mishap investigation team each addressed noncompliance with 

at least one of those requirements. However, as of June 2001, Stennis had not completed 

hazard analyses or markings for its critical lift cranes or its inventory of slings. 

Hazard Analyses. Stennis did not complete the required hazard analyses and the failure 

mode and effects analyses (FMEA),16 as applicable, for its critical lift cranes. Therefore, 

Stennis accepted uncalculated risks when performing critical lifts that could have caused 

harm to personnel and mission-critical programs. 

 

13 A move director is a contractor employee who has ultimate responsibility for overseeing Space Shuttle 

main engine lifting and transporting operations. 

14 A move conductor is a contractor employee who has ultimate responsibility for overseeing transport and 

lifting operations for certain Space Shuttle main engine components (that is, nozzles and pump 

assemblies.) 

15 A hazard analysis is the identification and evaluation of potential and existing hazards and the 

recommended mitigation for the hazardous sources identified. 16 An FMEA is a systematic, methodical analysis performed to identify and document all identifiable 

failure modes at a prescribed level and to specify the resultant effect of the modes of failure. FMEA’s are a 

part of risk analyses; however, a hazard analysis does not have to include an FMEA to be complete. 
5 

NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1 require a hazard analysis for all critical lift cranes to 

identify potential sources of danger and recommend appropriate resolution. In addition, a 

system of risk acceptance is required for hazards that cannot be eliminated. Stennis must 

perform and document a hazard analysis as part of the initial crane certification process 

and update the analysis to reflect changes in operation and/or crane configuration. 

Cranes used to lift personnel require both a hazard analysis and an FMEA. 

In June 1999, a mishap occurred at the B-Test Stand when Boeing lifted a commercial 

engine using the main derrick. Stennis’ mishap investigation team issued a written report 

on the mishap to Stennis management in September 1999. The mishap report identified 

that Stennis had not performed a design hazard analysis on the derrick modifications 

completed in 1993/94. The team recommended that Stennis perform a hazard analysis on 

the entire derrick system. Stennis may have identified and mitigated the risks associated 

with the mishap if it had performed the required hazard analysis. 

In 2000, two NASA internal reports addressed the need for hazard analyses. Specifically, 

in May, the Stennis S&MA Office reported there were no hazard analyses for the critical 

lift cranes.17 In June, the NASA Headquarters S&MA Office recommended that Stennis 

perform a hazard analysis prior to any critical lift operation.18 As of May 2001, Stennis 

still had not performed the hazard analyses and FMEA on critical lift cranes as required 

by NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1. 

Critical Lift Markings. In May 2000, both the NACB and Stennis S&MA Office 

provided reports to Stennis management that identified Stennis’ noncompliance with 

NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1 regarding crane markings for load bearing capability, 

warnings, and critical lift designation. The NSS/GO and SPG require Stennis to 

conspicuously mark cranes so that they are readily identified for critical lifts. 

 

We observed critical lift cranes that were not properly marked. Without proper markings, 

crane operators and safety personnel could not be assured that equipment was inspected, 

tested, and configured to perform critical lift operations. Use of improperly marked and 

undesignated cranes to perform critical lifts could result in operators using under-rated or 

substandard cranes to perform critical operations that could, upon failure, harm personnel 

or damage assets, equipment, or facilities. 

LDE Inventory. The NASA Headquarters Office of S&MA reported in its 1997 and 

1999 process verification reviews and its 2000 follow-up process verification review that 

Stennis did not maintain its LDE inventory.19 The reports showed that the NASA S&MA 

Office provided Stennis funding to complete an inventory in 1993, but due to a lack of 

resources, the Center was unable to keep the inventory current. 

 

17 The Stennis S&MA Office issued a report “Initial Inspection of Critical Lifting Devices at Stennis Space 

Center,” on May 25, 2000. 

18 The NASA Headquarters S&MA Office provided Stennis its “Final Report - Process Verification 

Follow-up at Stennis Space Center June 5-9, 2000,” on June 30, 2000. 19 The LDE inventory includes lifting equipment and all types of slings used to perform both critical and 

noncritical lifts. 
6 

Stennis updated its crane inventory in 2000; however, the inventory did not include 

slings. Therefore, the Center was not assured that its slings had the necessary design 

features, maintenance, inspection, and testing required for critical lift certification as 

required by NSS/GO-1740.9B. 

Stennis’ 2000 aerial man-lift mishap report stated that Lockheed-Martin used slings that 

did not conform to the load rating requirements of NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1 

and that were undersized for the lift. Had Stennis inventoried and properly documented 

its rigging equipment, the slings used in the mishap would have been load tested20 and 

marked with the load test value as prescribed by the NSS/GO and SPG. The synthetic 

slings used in the mishap were marked with the manufacturer’s load rating. However, 

the load test value assigned to the slings should have been reduced by 50 percent.21 

Lockheed-Martin did not perform a load test with the slings and, as a result, the slings did 

not reflect the reduced lifting capacity. Had Stennis maintained its LDE inventory and 

tested and marked the slings with the prescribed load rating, rigging personnel may have 

selected proper slings for the lift. 

Agency Requirements and Oversight for Critical Lift Operations

Stennis-Unique Lifting Requirements. Stennis had not established critical lift policies, 

as required by NSS/GO, to better define and identify its Center-unique lifting operations. 

Therefore, contractors were not performing critical lifts in the safest possible manner. 

Stennis’ 2000 aerial manlift mishap investigation team also concluded that the NSS/GO 

critical lift definition did not address all items that the team deemed critical, such as items 

valued at more than $25,000 or lifts performed above critical infrastructure. We agree 

that Stennis needs to broaden the generic Agencywide definition of critical lift by 

updating SPG 8715.1 to specifically address critical lifting operations that are unique to 

the Center. 

Stennis’ Surveillance of Lifting Operations. Consistent with the Agency's overall 

safety policy, Stennis transitioned from oversight to insight22 as a means to ensure the 

safety of NASA's programs. As a result, Stennis S&MA officials performed fewer 

mandatory inspections and limited surveillance to high-risk safety areas. For example, 

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)23 officials informed us that Stennis 

 

20 NSS/GO-1740.9B requires that new LDE and modified/altered/extensively repaired LDE be load tested 

prior to first use with a dummy load that exceeds the rated capacity of the crane by specified percentages. 

The NSS/GO also requires periodic rated load tests using a dummy load equal to the LDE’s rated capacity. 

21 NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1 require that ratings for synthetic rope slings be reduced by 50 percent 

of the manufacturer’s load rating and permanently marked with the reduced rating based on load test 

results. 

22 Insight is a surveillance mode requiring only the monitoring of customer-identified metrics and 

contracted milestones. Insight is a continuum that can range from low intensity, such as reviewing 

quarterly reports, to high intensity, such as performing surveys and reviews. 23 Stennis delegated safety surveillance for the Lockheed-Martin, MSS, and Boeing contracts to the 

DCMA. 
7 

removed the mandatory inspection requirements for Boeing's engine lifts, thus 

eliminating DCMA oversight of lifting operations under the Boeing contract. 

Mishap investigations, independent assessments such as the NACB crane inspection, and 

functional reviews like the NASA Headquarters S&MA Office's process verification 

reviews, are key sources of data for establishing a method of insight. Although Stennis 

received various reports from these sources that identified serious LDE deficiencies, 

Center safety officials did not increase the risk or the level of surveillance associated with 

the Center's lifting operations. 

Conclusion on Critical Lift Operations 

Although the three Stennis contractors were aware of the NSS/GO requirements, they did 

not properly classify and conduct critical lifts in accordance with the NASA standards. 

Further, Stennis did not provide adequate safety oversight necessary to identify and 

correct the deficiencies in the Center’s critical lift operations. In addition, Stennis did not 

comply with requirements for hazard analyses, critical lift markings, and a complete LDE 

inventory even though multiple reports addressed these deficiencies. As a result, Stennis 

and its contractors compromised the safety of personnel, destroyed Government property, 

and increased the overall risk of loss or damage to flight hardware, equipment, and 

facilities when performing critical lifts.

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Response 

The Director, John C. Stennis Space Center, should: 

1. Direct all Stennis contractors to conduct critical lifts in accordance with 

NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1. 

Management Response. Concur. All contractors shall be directed to conduct critical 

lifts in accordance with NSS/GO 1740.9 and the Stennis LDE Management Plan. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. However, we ask that Stennis provide additional details describing 

how it will direct the contractors to perform critical lifts in accordance with Agency and 

Center standards and to provide planned completion dates. The recommendation is 

resolved, but will remain undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective 

actions are completed. 

2. Direct the Manager, Safety and Mission Assurance and the LDE Program 

Manager to perform hazard analyses, mark cranes, and maintain an LDE inventory 

as required by NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1. 

Management’s Response. Partially Concur. Stennis will require hazard analyses for 

new LDE and for procurement of new cranes. Contracts for new equipment will require 
8 

that suppliers provide hazard analyses. Hazard analyses are primarily utilized in the 

design phase. Because Stennis has adequate historical data on its existing critical lift 

cranes, the most appropriate and value-added approach for those cranes is to perform risk 

evaluations in lieu of hazard analyses. The LDE Management Plan requires capacity 

markings for all cranes and conspicuous markings for all critical lift cranes. A Stennis 

work order will be prepared to ensure all cranes are marked as required. An inventory of 

all lifting devices is currently maintained in the Facility Operations Support Contractor 

(FOSC) Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). Although an 

inventory of slings is not required, all contractors have been tasked to maintain an 

inventory of their rigging gear. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned actions are 

conditionally responsive to the recommendation. However, Stennis did not address 

obtaining waivers from the hazard analyses requirement for the existing cranes. A 

waiver may be authorized when it is adequately justified and approved at the appropriate 

management level. Stennis informed us that it plans to request waivers for the existing 

equipment requiring hazard analyses and that the Center Director would be the approving 

authority for those waivers. If the Center plans to obtain properly approved waivers, then 

management’s response would meet the intent of the recommendation. As for 

recommendation 1, we ask management to provide additional details describing how 

critical lift cranes will be marked and the planned completion date for marking all cranes. 

Stennis should also needs provide additional details describing how the contractors will 

maintain the rigging equipment inventory, including a planned completion date for the 

inventory. The recommendation is resolved, but will remain undispositioned and open 

for reporting purposes until corrective actions are completed. 

3. Revise SPG 8715.1 to identify Stennis-unique critical lift requirements. 

Management Response. Concur. The Stennis LDE Management Plan has been 

modified to define unique, programmatic critical lifts. Upon final approval, the plan will 

replace the current chapter on LDE in SPG 8715.1. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. However, we ask that Stennis provide its definition of unique, 

programmatic critical lifts and the planned completion date for approval of the Center’s 

LDE Management Plan and its incorporation into SPG 8715.1. The recommendation is 

resolved, but will remain undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective 

actions are completed. 

4. Increase Government surveillance of critical lifting operations to ensure 

they comply with the requirements of NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1. 

Management Response. Concur. The Stennis S&MA office has been tasked to prepare 

a surveillance plan that will ensure compliance with all requirements of NSS/GO 1740.9 

and the Stennis LDE Management Plan. The surveillance plan will address training and 
9 

certification of operators, maintenance of equipment, procurement of new equipment, and 

surveillance of lifting operations. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. We ssk that Stennis provide a planned completion date for 

implementing the surveillance plan. The recommendation is resolved, but will remain 

undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective actions are completed. 
10 

Finding B. Training and Certifying Operators and Riggers 

MSS, Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin did not train and certify crane operators and riggers 

in accordance with NASA and Stennis standards. Noncompliance with Agency 

requirements occurred because (1) MSS did not properly administer a Center-wide 

personnel training and certification program, and (2) Stennis did not provide adequate 

surveillance or correct training and certification deficiencies previously reported. 

Consequently, the three contractors routinely performed lifts without properly trained and 

certified operators and riggers. The lack of adequate training contributed to two major 

mishaps costing NASA more than $550,000. 

Training and Certification Requirements 

NASA Requirements. NSS/GO-1740.9B requires NASA Centers to establish training, 

testing, and licensing programs for crane operators and riggers. Additionally, critical lift 

operators must demonstrate proficiency for initial certification, and their licenses must 

identify each crane they are authorized to operate. 

Stennis Requirements. SPG 8715.1, Section I.1.4, "Safety and Health Training, 

Education and Certification," requires certification of all Government and contractor 

personnel who perform hazardous and/or critical operations. Personnel must have the 

knowledge, skill, judgment, and physical ability to perform in a safe, qualified manner. 

Requirements for certified personnel24 include (1) physical examinations, (2) on-the-job 

and classroom safety training, and (3) written and operational qualification testing. MSS 

is responsible for training and certifying all LDE operators. 

Contractor Compliance with Training and Certification Requirements 

We reviewed training and certification records for MSS, Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin 

crane operators and riggers and determined they did not comply with Agency and 

contractor certification requirements. 

MSS Operator Qualifications. Consistent with NASA standards, MSS Safety and 

Health Requirement 007, "Crane Operator Proficiency and Rigging and Inspection 

Proficiency," requires that operators be issued certificates that identify the cranes the 

operators are qualified to operate. However, none of 13 MSS operators had cranespecific certifications. Rather, operators were certified for crane categories such as 

 

24 MSS also established requirements for its crane operators. The MSS Safety Office Desk Guide, number 

18-35-005, "Employee Certification," identifies special skills and/or critical operations for which personnel 

must be certified. The Guide requires personnel performing lifting, rigging, derrick, and/or man-lift 

operations to be trained and certified. 
11 

mobile or overhead cranes.25 In addition, MSS did not require operators to demonstrate 

proficiency on specific critical lift cranes. The operators, therefore, did not meet Agency 

or internal certification requirements. 

Only three of the nine MSS employees who performed crane inspections were certified 

crane operators. Inspectors must operate a crane to perform a proper inspection and, 

therefore, must be operator certified. We observed two of the six noncertified inspectors 

operating cranes while performing crane maintenance and inspections. NASA, Stennis, 

and MSS safety standards clearly state that only certified personnel are authorized to 

operate cranes. 

MSS Training and Examination. The MSS Safety Office developed and conducted 

general classroom training for mobile and overhead crane operators; however, the 

training was not crane-specific. MSS also did not provide on-the-job training. 

MSS requires operators to pass a written examination upon completion of training. We 

attended a course and observed operators using course materials to complete the 

examination. Although some materials such as charts for calculating load limits at 

various angles were needed to answer some questions, operators should have answered 

other questions based on knowledge and experience. Allowing participants to use 

handout materials defeated the purpose of the test, which was to determine whether 

operators had the knowledge and skill to safely operate a crane. 

We reviewed eight tests taken by certified operators. Although the MSS instructor did 

not grade the tests, he passed each operator. We subsequently graded the tests and found 

that four operators failed by scoring less than the minimum required passing score of 85 

percent. 

Crane operators also had to complete performance tests. Similar to the classroom 

training, MSS conducted overhead crane performance tests using only two cranes rather 

than the specific crane the operator would operate. 

Boeing Operator and Rigger Qualifications. Boeing operators and riggers did not 

comply with Agency certification requirements. Boeing trained and certified its 

operators in accordance with a Rocketdyne-Stennis Safety Manual,26 dated July 1998. 

The manual required operators to train, witness and practice lifts, and pass a qualification 

test. Boeing did not require operators to pass physical examinations prior to certification 

as mandated by NASA. 

Boeing had 96 overhead crane operators and riggers; however, none were certified on 

specific cranes. Further, although 74 of the 96 operators were certified as meeting 

 

25 In May 2000, the Stennis LDE program manager reported that basic operator training did not comply 

with industry standards because certifications were general category rather than crane-specific. 26 In 1996 Boeing acquired Rocketdyne (previously a Division of Rockwell International Corporation). 

Boeing has an updated training program in draft and established a new Web-based examination for 

operators in September 1999. 
12 

Boeing requirements, 20 did not have physical examinations. Boeing considered the 

remaining 22 operators to be qualified but not certified. 

1999 Lifting Mishap. On June 23, 1999, a mishap27 occurred during a Boeing lift of a 

commercial engine using the main 200-ton derrick.28 Support personnel noticed 

vibration and noise from the derrick and evacuated the area before the roller bracket, 

shaft, and debris fell to the ground. The mishap resulted in more than $350,000 in 

damages. 

In September 1999, the Stennis mishap investigation team reported that inadequate 

training and a lack of experience caused the lifting mishap. Specifically, the operators 

and riggers had only about 2 hours of on-the-job training and had performed only one 

critical lift under qualified operator supervision. The lift's draw-works observer29

received only 1 hour of on-the-job training. After the mishap, Stennis assigned all 

derrick operations to Lockheed-Martin. 

Lockheed-Martin Operator and Rigger Qualifications. Like MSS and Boeing, 

Lockheed-Martin had its own certification program. Lockheed-Martin's Personnel 

Certification Plan requires personnel performing critical tasks or hazardous operations to 

have physical examinations, on-the-job training, and certifications. Operators and riggers 

are recertified annually to those requirements. 

Lockheed-Martin had a total of three derrick operators, 40 crane operators, and 14 

riggers. We reviewed 15 derrick and crane operator certifications. All of the operators 

had completed physical examinations, safety overviews, and proficiency tests; however, 

none had crane-specific certifications as required by NASA.

2000 Lifting Mishap. As described in Finding A, on November 5, 2000, a man-lift fell 

about 80 feet from the B-Test Stand main derrick because Lockheed-Martin used 

improper rigging to perform the lift. The mishap resulted in a destroyed man-lift, 

damage to the stand, and incidental expenses totaling more than $200,000. 

Lockheed-Martin had to recertify its riggers because of training and skill deficiencies 

identified in the 2000 mishap investigation team's report. For the second time in 2 years, 

a mishap investigation team cited lack of adequate training as the major cause of a lifting 

mishap at Stennis.30 The investigation team determined that Lockheed-Martin riggers did 

not possess basic rigging skills31 because training and testing were inadequate. 

Specifically, rigger training consisted only of video examples of rigging equipment rather 

 

27 The mishap occurred when the main derrick’s hook traveled upward until the lower sheave block 

contacted the upper-fixed sheave block. The main hoist pulled the two blocks together and damaged the 

upper block and main hoist cable and caused a roller bracket and shaft assembly to fall to the test stand. 

28 At Stennis, a derrick is a large fixed crane mounted near the top of the test stands. 

29 The draw-works observer ensures proper operation of equipment that powers the hoisting mechanism. 30 Both the 1999 and 2000 mishap reports cited inadequate training as the main cause for the incidents. 

31 The team reported that riggers did not understand proper sling usage or how to determine proper sling 

size. 
13 

than detailed rigging instruction. Further, the written test was primarily true/false and did 

not provide a good evaluation of rigging knowledge. Lockheed-Martin suspended rigger 

certifications in November 2000 and reactivated them in February 2001 when employees 

completed 16 hours of classroom and hands-on training.32

Center-wide Personnel Certification Program 

The lack of a Center-wide personnel certification program has contributed to the lack of 

compliance with the Agency's LDE requirements. As part of its contract for Stennis' 

facility operating services, MSS is responsible for developing a comprehensive training 

program for Stennis and its contractor crane operators and riggers. MSS did not 

administer a program for all three contractors (MSS, Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin) 

operating cranes at Stennis. Rather, each of the three managed its own training program. 

A Center-wide training and certification program would provide consistency and 

compliance with NASA and Stennis certification requirements. 

Stennis Reliance on Contractor Mishap Investigation Board and Implementation of 

Corrective Actions 

Stennis relied too heavily on contractor oversight of crane operations. For example, 

Stennis improperly relied on contractors with potential conflicts to perform the 1999 

mishap investigation. NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8621.1G, "NASA Mishap 

Reporting and Investigating Policy," provides that Center Directors will appoint and 

approve mishap investigation officials when damages or losses are from $250,000 to 

$1 million. Mishap Investigation Boards must be NASA sponsored and consist of 

individuals with expertise in the area with no vested interest in the outcome. However, a 

NASA project manager tasked Lockheed-Martin to assemble a team33 to investigate the 

mishap. Other Stennis contractor employees also served on the board. Even though 

Boeing was operating the derrick when the mishap occurred, it had representatives on the 

board. There was no evidence the Center Director approved the investigation team or 

received a copy of its final report. Our review of the 2000 man-lift mishap showed that 

the Center Director complied with the NPD by appointing and approving the appropriate 

investigation officials. 

Finally, Stennis did not implement some of the board’s recommendations. For example, 

the board recommended comprehensive training for the riggers. However, Stennis did 

not provide rigger training until February 2001, or after the second mishap occurred in 

2000. Stennis may have avoided the 2000 mishap if it had implemented the rigger 

training promptly after the board's recommendation in 1999. Tracking and resolving 

training and certification recommendations made by both internal and external 

organizations will further help ensure that lifting operations are conducted in as safe a 

manner as possible, and by properly qualified personnel only. 

 

32 Stennis hired an independent contractor to conduct two 16-hour rigging courses. 33 The team consisted of NASA, Lockheed-Martin, Johnson Controls World Services, and Boeing 

representatives. The three NASA representatives on the team functioned only as advisors.
14 

Conclusion on Training and Certifying Operators and Riggers 

Properly trained and certified crane operators and riggers are the single most important 

factor in ensuring safe lifting operations. Training deficiencies were the main cause of 

the two mishaps costing NASA more than $550,000; however, the lack of training and 

certification remains a significant weakness. Increased Government surveillance of 

contractor compliance with the training and certification requirements of NSS/GO1740.9B and SPG 8715.1 will help ensure that only properly trained and certified 

operators perform lifts at Stennis. Until Stennis ensures its operators and riggers are 

qualified and properly certified, the Center faces risk of additional mishaps, personnel 

injury or death, and loss or damage to equipment and facilities essential to NASA. 

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Response 

The Director, John C. Stennis Space Center, should: 

5. Direct MSS to establish and maintain a comprehensive training and 

certification program for all operators and riggers at Stennis and to ensure that 

certifications are in compliance with the requirements of NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 

8715.1. 

Management’s Response. Partially concur. Stennis is establishing a comprehensive 

training and certification program for all operators and riggers, which will comply with 

NSS/GO-1740.9 and the Stennis LDE Management Plan. Overall responsibility may be 

assigned to an organization other than MSS. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned actions are responsive 

to the recommendation. We ask Stennis to provide additional details describing how the 

training and certification program will be managed as well as a planned completion date 

for establishing the responsible organization. The recommendation is resolved, but will 

remain undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective actions are 

completed. 

6. Increase Government surveillance of contractor compliance with training 

and certification requirements to ensure compliance with NSS/GO-1740.9B and 

SPG 8715.1. 

Management’s Response. Concur. See the response to Recommendation 4. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. As for recommendation 4, we ask that management provide a 

planned completion date for implementing the surveillance plan. The recommendation is 
15 

resolved, but will remain undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective 

actions are completed

7. Direct the Manager, Safety and Mission Assurance, to track and resolve 

training and certification recommendations made by both external and internal 

reviews such as investigation boards, process verification reviews, or independent 

assessments. 

Management’s Response. Concur. All training and certification recommendations 

from external and internal reviews will be addressed in the comprehensive training plan 

identified in Recommendation 5. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. As for recommendation 5, we ask management to provide 

additional details describing how the training and certification program will be managed 

and to provide a planned completion date for establishing the responsible organization. 

The recommendation is resolved, but will remain undispositioned and open for reporting 

purposes until corrective actions are completed.
16 

Finding C. Crane Operation Safety 

LDE operators routinely used cranes and derricks with safety deficiencies. Cranes were 

unsafe because contractor personnel did not follow established procedures for recording, 

reporting, and correcting crane and derrick deficiencies and disregarded previously 

recommended corrective actions for reporting and correcting crane deficiencies. Also, 

the Government lacked oversight of crane operations. As a result, operators did not have 

sufficient information to assess the safety and reliability of cranes prior to operation and, 

in some cases, conducted operations with unsafe equipment. 

Requirements for Safety Inspections and Corrective Maintenance 

NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1 require a documentation process for crane problems 

and deficiencies. Contractor crane operators must perform daily equipment inspections 

and review previously recorded deficiencies to assess their impact on planned lifting 

activities. Stennis has established procedures for meeting this requirement by using 

crane logbooks34 that are to be maintained in the operator’s area of each crane. In 

addition, contractor crane operators must report deficiencies to their supervisor and 

obtain approval to continue operations. MSS is responsible for correcting hazardous 

conditions prior to further use of the equipment. 

Cranes with Safety Deficiencies 

Our review of crane logbooks showed that operators continued to use cranes and derricks 

with known safety deficiencies. 

Contractor Logbooks. Boeing and Lockheed-Martin had no logbooks for overhead 

cranes, and MSS stopped maintaining logbooks for mobile cranes in 1999. LockheedMartin derrick operators maintained logbooks, but did not consistently record required 

data, such as the specific lift description, the device used, or corrective actions. 

Additionally, when MSS mobile crane operators maintained logbooks, they routinely 

recorded entries such as "same as above" or "same as last entry." Therefore, it was 

difficult for an operator to determine existing problems with a particular crane or derrick. 

For example, in September 1999, an operator recorded “same as above” for two entries 

related to a wire rope problem recorded in August 1999. However, MSS had replaced the 

wire rope on August 25, 1999 (prior to the September entries). Therefore, we questioned 

the adequacy of the pre-operational inspections of the crane's wire rope. Examples of 

problems we noted with operator logbooks are shown in Table 1. 

 

34 Logbooks are used to record the results of daily operator inspections. 
17 

Table 1. 

Problems Noted in Crane Operator Logbooks 

Crane Description 

Job Not Listed Noted “Same as Previous Entry” Problems Not Fixed Promptly Lifts Made With Problems Noted No Evidence of Supervisory Approval to Continue Lifts Logbook Not Current Date of Last Recorded Lift 

130-93 Mobile X X X X X X 11/19/99 

130-101 Mobile X X X X X X 12/09/99 

130-105 Mobile X Logbook weathered and illegible X 09/22/99 

130-106 Mobile X X X X X X 12/01/99 

A-1 Derrick N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 06/07/00 

A-2 Derrick N/A N/A X N/A N/A N/A 05/19/00 

L92 B1/B2 Derrick N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12/05/00 

L91 B1/B2 Derrick N/A N/A X X X N/A 12/19/00 

L5/L6 Overhead X N/A N/A N/A N/A X 03/16/00 

L10/L11 Overhead N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X 04/20/99 

 N/A – Not Applicable 

Some recorded problems were recurring, long-standing conditions,35 particularly on the 

Center's mobile cranes. Table 2 lists examples of long-standing problems and associated 

operator comments from mobile crane logbooks. 

Table 2. 

Recurring, Long-Standing Problems Recorded by Mobile Crane Operators 

Crane 

Number 

Equipment Problem 

Recorded in Logbook Period Noted Operator Remarks Recorded 

Throughout Logbook 

130-093 Outrigger(s) Leaking 

Down 7/97–11/99 “No action taken” “Leaks down bad” “Still 

leaks after 6 months” 

130-093 Hydraulic Fluid/Oil Leaks 7/97–11/99 

“Motor leaks oil bad” “No action taken” 

“Oil leaks everywhere” “Needs help” 

“Very unsafe-turned in number of times” 

130-093 Cable Too Short 7/97-7/99 “Cable too short to do some jobs” 

130-093 Need Boom Angle 

Indicator 7/97-11/99 “Boom indicator needs numbers” “Needs 

new one” 

130-101 Hydraulic Fluid/Oil Leaks 7/97-7/99 “Oil leaks bad” 

130-106 Cable Bad and Too Short 8/98-4/99 

“Down to wrap and a half and smashed 

spot in cable” “Need new cable bad” 

“Need another 50-100 feet of cable” “Need 

cables main and jib. Has been turned in” 

130-106 Cable Bad 8/99-12/99 “Bad Spot in Cable” 

130-106 Brake Needs Adjusted –

Whip Line Riding Up 12/98-2/99 “All this and more has been turned in” 

 

35 Operators noted many problems under the previous facilities operations contractor; however, delays in 

crane repairs continued to be a problem after Stennis awarded the new contract to MSS in August 1999. 
18 

Crane Conditions for Lifts. Operators continued lifting operations on three mobile 

cranes when the wire rope was too short. For example, operators reported the rope was 

down to a wrap-and-a-half36 on critical lift crane number 130-10637 as early as August 

1998; however, crane operations continued until the facilities operations contractor 

replaced the wire rope in April 1999. In August 1999, operators again reported a 

problem with the wire rope on crane number 103-106, and, as before, continued using the 

crane until maintenance replaced the rope in May 2000. During both periods between 

reporting of the wire rope problems and actual wire rope replacement, operators 

performed numerous lifts, including lifts of rocket engines and personnel. The continued 

use of cranes with insufficient rope clearly violated lifting standards and could have 

resulted in loss of critical flight hardware or harm to personnel. 

Procedures for Reporting Deficiencies 

Derrick operators did not follow Stennis procedures for recording or notifying their 

supervisors of problems encountered on the derricks. An operator informed us that 

Lockheed-Martin orally communicated problems to MSS maintenance for either 

resolution or approval to continue operations. The MSS maintenance supervisor 

confirmed that deficiencies were sometimes reported orally. Occasionally, operators 

documented that either a supervisor or MSS representative was notified and approved 

continued operations. However, we found no evidence that supervisors, maintenance 

crews, or safety personnel (Government or contractor) reviewed the logbooks. Review of 

the logbooks by these personnel would have detected that (1) operators did not follow 

procedures to identify, document, and report problems prior to lifting operations, (2) 

MSS did not resolve documented deficiencies promptly, and (3) cranes were unsafe to 

operate. 

Implementing Corrective Actions 

The 1999 mishap report identified a lack of procedures for recording and tracking 

deficiencies identified by operators. The report recommended replacing the existing 

Derrick Operations Logbook (a generic ledger) with a Derrick Operations Record to track 

maintenance, deficiencies, corrective actions, derrick status, and other required logbook 

data. As of March 2001, Stennis had not implemented the recommendation. Therefore, 

we could not determine whether MSS had corrected problems recorded or reported by the 

derrick operators. 

In May 2000, the NACB found crane deficiencies throughout the Center and 

recommended that Stennis incorporate a detailed inspection program to assure crane 

operational readiness, placing special emphasis on wire rope conditions. MSS corrected 

many of the NACB reported deficiencies; however, several of the deficiencies were long-

 

36 The NSS/GO and SPG 8715.1 preclude operators from using cranes with less than two full wraps of rope 

on the hoist drum. 

37 Mobile crane 130-106 was classified for critical lifts; however, MSS used other mobile cranes not 

classified for critical lifts to perform lifts that met NSS/GO critical lift requirements. 
19 

standing. MSS had documented procedures for performing crane inspections and 

specific procedures for wire rope inspections which MSS did not always follow. In our 

opinion, MSS should have identified, reported, and corrected the deficiencies prior to the 

NACB report. 

Conclusion on Crane Operation Safety 

Operators continued to perform lifts when cranes were unsafe to operate. Because MSS 

did not record the results of inspections and maintenance in crane logbooks, operators did 

not have sufficient information to assess cranes for lift safety and reliability. Available 

logbooks showed that many cranes had known deficiencies, some for prolonged periods. 

Although performing pre-operational safety inspections and maintaining logbooks is key 

to ensuring safe operation of cranes and associated equipment, LDE operators did not 

perform those tasks. Further, had Stennis provided adequate safety oversight of crane 

operations, many of the problems identified by the 1999 mishap investigation team, the 

NACB, and this audit could have been avoided. 

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Response 

The Director, John C. Stennis Space Center, should: 

8. Direct contractor personnel, including operators, maintenance and 

inspection crews, and supervisors, to maintain logbooks for all cranes as required 

by NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1. 

Management’s Response. Partially Concur. The Stennis LDE Management Plan has 

incorporated a requirement for operators’ daily inspection checklists, in lieu of a logbook, 

for all cranes. The checklists will be maintained until all open corrective actions are 

closed. If no discrepancies are noted, the checklists will be deleted after 30 days. 

Permanent records regarding LDE corrective maintenance will be maintained in the 

FOSC CMMS system. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned actions are responsive 

to the recommendation. We ask Stennis to provide a planned completion date for 

implementing the daily inspection checklist and describe how it will monitor the 

checklist for completion of corrective actions. The recommendation is resolved, but will 

remain undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective actions are 

completed.

9. Implement promptly the previously recommended corrective actions for 

reporting and correcting crane and derrick deficiencies. 

Management’s Response. Concur. The reporting and correcting of crane and derrick 

deficiencies will be tracked by means of the checklists described in recommendation 8. 
20 

Permanent records regarding LDE corrective maintenance will be maintained in the 

FOSC CMMS system. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned actions are 

conditionally responsive to the recommendation. However, Stennis did not state how 

previously recommended corrective actions will be addressed on the operators’ daily 

checklists. If management plans to incorporate previously recommended corrective 

actions on the initial daily operator checklist and complete the appropriate maintenance, 

then management’s actions would meet the intent of the recommendation. In addition, 

Stennis should provide us a planned completion date for implementing the process of 

preparing operator checklists. The recommendation is resolved, but will remain 

undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective actions are completed. 

10. Prohibit the use of cranes with known hazardous deficiencies as required 

by NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1. 

Management’s Response. Concur. Contractors shall be directed to tag out cranes with 

known hazardous deficiencies. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. We ask that Stennis provide additional details describing how it 

will direct contractors to tag out cranes when necessary and to provide a planned 

completion date. The recommendation is resolved, but will remain undispositioned and 

open for reporting purposes until corrective actions are completed. 

11. Increase Government surveillance of contractor compliance with crane 

operation safety requirements and supporting documentation in accordance with 

the requirements of NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1. 

Management’s Response. Concur. See response to Recommendation 4. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. As for recommendation 4, management should provide us a 

planned completion date for implementing the surveillance plan. The recommendation is 

resolved, but will remain undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective 

actions are completed.
21 

Finding D. Preventive Maintenance for Cranes 

MSS did not perform adequate preventive maintenance (PM)38 on cranes located at 

Stennis. Specifically, MSS did not schedule, perform, or document PM as required by 

Agency standards. PM deficiencies occurred because (1) MSS experienced problems 

with its computerized maintenance system and (2) neither Stennis nor MSS provided 

adequate oversight or implemented recommended corrective actions for maintenance 

deficiencies. As a result, contractors performed lifts with some cranes that were unsafe 

to operate. 

Requirements for Crane Preventive Maintenance Program 

NASA Requirements. NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1 require that the Centers 

establish PM programs based on manufacturers’ recommendations and/or experience. 

PM programs should include procedures for scheduling periodic maintenance and 

making needed adjustments, replacements, and repairs. In addition, the Centers must 

prepare maintenance records and document unsafe test and inspection discrepancies. 

Stennis Requirements. Stennis Operating Instruction (OI) 40-01-52, "Guidelines for 

Process Control," requires MSS to plan and schedule maintenance using MAXIMO.39 

Stennis OI 40-01-015, "Administration of the Preventive Maintenance Program," requires 

MSS to develop and update PM schedules, maintain the MAXIMO database, generate 

reports, and develop and revise maintenance instructions. Stennis OI 40-01-001, 

"Operating Instruction for Issuance, Use and Completion of the Work Order Document 

within the Facilities Systems Department," provides guidance for completing work orders 

for PM. 

Compliance with Crane PM Requirements 

The MSS program for PM was inadequate. Our review of PM work orders and 

observations of maintenance activities showed that MSS did not schedule, perform, or 

document PM activities for cranes in accordance with Agency standards. 

Scheduling and Performing PM. MSS did not schedule or perform PM as required. 

Specifically, MSS deferred PM for 15 of 64 work orders we reviewed, thus negating the 

purpose of routine maintenance. For example, for the Grove 25-ton mobile crane, we 

found that during an 8-month period, October 1999 through May 2000, MSS issued one 

work order for monthly maintenance, two work orders for quarterly maintenance, and 

one work order for annual maintenance. MSS completed the scheduled PM for two of 

the four work orders on the same day and then needlessly completed the PM for the 

 

38 The MSS contract defines preventive maintenance as the planned, scheduled, periodic inspection, 

adjustment, cleaning, and lubrication of equipment and systems. 

39 MAXIMO is a computerized maintenance management system used to track and report all PM for 

Stennis structures, facilities, utilities, systems, and Government property. 
22 

remaining two work orders just 6 days later. Table 3 shows the various PM work orders 

scheduled and the actual maintenance performed. 

Table 3. 

PM Scheduled and Performed on the Grove 25-ton Mobile Crane 

From October 1999 Through May 2000 

Work 

Order 

Number 

(A) 

PM 

Cycle 

(B) 

Work 

Order Issue 

Date 

(C-- See 

Column E) 

Work Order Comment 

(D) 

Preventive 

Maintenance 

Completion Date 

(E) 

6905 Quarterly 10/17/99 

Deferred to work order 

11275. Crane used for 

Shuttle support. 

Completed on work 

order 11275 on 5/28/00 

11275 Quarterly 1/16/00 None Completed 5/28/00 

21642 Annual 5/5/00 Hydraulic filter and oil 

changed 3 weeks prior. Completed 5/22/00 

25014 Monthly 5/18/00 Deferred to Work Order 

21642. Completed 5/22/00 

From October 1999 through May 2000, MSS should have issued eight PM work orders 

for the Grove 25-ton crane. According to the maintenance requirements for the Grove 

crane, MSS should have scheduled and performed monthly, quarterly, semiannual, and/or 

annual PM each year. Only one type of maintenance is required each month, and MSS 

should not schedule or perform quarterly and annual PM in the same month. As shown 

in Table 3, from October 1999 through May 2000, MSS did not schedule or perform the 

required monthly or semiannual PM. Finally, after performing no maintenance for 

7 months, MSS scheduled and performed three types of maintenance (monthly, quarterly, 

and annual) in May 2000 when only annual PM was necessary. 

We found similar problems for two other mobile cranes. Specifically, MSS deferred 

scheduled monthly PM for an 8.5-ton and a 75-ton crane from November 1999 until 

March 2000. Consequently, MSS did not service those cranes for 4 months. 

We also questioned whether MSS actually performed some PM. For example, work 

order 21642 (shown in Table 3) showed that MSS changed the mobile crane's hydraulic 

oil and filter 3 weeks prior to completing work order 21642. However, no work orders 

showed that MSS changed the crane’s oil and filter during either April or May 2000. 

MSS also did not document the use of consumable materials such as oil, hydraulic fluid, 

filters, and lubricants when performing PM. Of the 64 work orders we reviewed from 

August 1999 through September 2000, none showed requests for or use of materials. 

Based on MSS’ accounting data, we determined that only one PM work order showed 

associated material costs of $22.33. The absence of materials costs for routine 

maintenance indicated that MSS might not have performed some required PM tasks. 
23 

In May 2000, the NACB reported PM deficiencies to Stennis. The NACB reported 

numerous problems such as leaking seals and inadequate lubrication on critical lift 

cranes. MSS had performed maintenance and/or inspections on the same cranes in the 

months immediately prior to the NACB inspections. However, MSS work orders did not 

reflect similar problems with the same cranes during the same period. 

MSS management was aware of inadequacies in its maintenance program. MSS 

documented problems with maintenance in its September 30, 2000, Maintenance Plan.40 

Specifically, the plan stated that MSS had not (1) provided adequate visibility of 

upcoming work requirements or (2) consistently met performance metrics for completing 

PM. 

PM Observations. Our observations of PM on selected cranes also raised concerns 

about the adequacy of the maintenance performed. For example, on October 20, 2000, 

we initially planned to observe semiannual maintenance on two overhead cranes (L-19 

and L-20). On that day, however, MSS performed PM only on the L-20 crane and stated 

that it completed PM on the L-19 crane in September. However, July 12, 2000, was the 

last recorded PM for the L-19 crane. 

During our October 20, 2000, observation, MSS was unable to perform some required 

maintenance tasks such as inspecting the brakes and drive motor on the L-20 crane 

because the components were housed inside a sealed compartment. The work order for 

the L-20 crane also required changing of the gearbox lubricant. However, the 

maintenance crew did not change the gearbox lubricant because the crew’s supervisor 

instructed it to change the lubricant annually instead of semiannually. 

We also observed many mobile cranes with safety and maintenance deficiencies. Some 

of the more significant crane deficiencies included fluid leaks, badly worn tires, and 

cracked glass. Figures 3 and 4 show the condition of a mobile crane used almost daily at 

Stennis. 

 

40 MSS prepared a maintenance plan, dated September 30, 2000, in accordance with its contract terms. 

According to a cover letter accompanying the plan, it was submitted in response to a pledge by the MSS 

Board of Directors to improve its performance on PM and corrective maintenance activities. 
24 

 Figure-3. Bald tires on a 55-ton mobile crane. Figure-4. Cracked operator’s cab roof glass 

 on a 55-ton mobile crane. 

During the audit, MSS initiated corrective actions such as replacing tires and cleaning up 

leaking areas on some cranes. 

MSS PM Documentation. MSS did not document PM work orders in accordance with 

Stennis OI 40-01-001. A total of 38 (59 percent) of 64 work orders reviewed did not 

show the actual labor hours charged or identify the personnel performing the PM tasks. 

Twenty-two (34 percent) of the 64 work orders did not show the PM tasks to be 

performed. Forty-two (66 percent) of the work orders did not contain evidence of any 

type of supervisory review. 

MSS Transition to an Upgraded Maintenance Management System 

MSS primarily attributed PM scheduling problems to its transition to an upgraded version 

of the MAXIMO maintenance management system. When MSS brought the new version 

on-line, MAXIMO erratically scheduled required PM. MSS subsequently revised the 

PM schedule within MAXIMO to distribute PM more evenly. 

Work orders also did not include all required PM tasks because MSS did not import 

equipment specification tables41 into the upgraded version of MAXIMO. After MSS 

reconstructed the tables, work orders included more of the appropriate PM requirements. 

However, the work orders did not include the level of detail as those issued prior to the 

MAXIMO upgrade. For example, quarterly PM for a 4.5-ton mobile crane previously 

required 41 tasks. The quarterly PM work orders for a 4.5-ton mobile crane in the new 

version of MAXIMO contained only seven required tasks. 

According to MSS, managing maintenance requirements became more difficult as the 

number of cranes increased. To alleviate the problem, MSS developed maintenance 

 

41 Equipment specification tables contain relevant maintenance data such as minimum wire rope diameters, 

fluid specifications, lubrication points, and scheduled maintenance intervals and tasks. 
25 

instructions for the various crane categories (bridge, derrick, mobile). However, because 

the maintenance instructions were not crane specific, all PM tasks were not applicable to 

the cranes in a given category. 

Government and Contractor Oversight of the Preventive Maintenance Program 

Government Oversight. The DCMA letter of delegation for the MSS contract requires 

audit coverage necessary to assure compliance with contractor quality and safety 

requirements and mandatory surveillance for repair and testing of safety critical 

equipment, including cranes. The DCMA, however, did not adequately provide 

surveillance of maintenance and testing. According to monthly status reports, DCMA 

representatives performed minimal surveillance of PM. Specifically, reports prepared 

from December 1999 through August 2000 identified that only 1 out of 670 DCMA 

surveillance observations related to crane maintenance. Based on maintenance 

deficiencies noted in the May 2000 NACB and Stennis internal inspection reports, we 

would have expected significantly more maintenance observations by the DCMA during 

the 9-month period. Due to the DCMA's failure to report PM deficiencies, we question 

the adequacy of its surveillance. 

MSS Oversight. The MSS Maintenance Plan provides for quality reviews to include 

reviewing (1) work orders, (2) required PM compared to actually performed, and (3) 

documented discrepancies and findings. However, MSS had not performed any quality 

reviews of crane maintenance. Further, the only evidence of MSS safety reviews we 

found was for load tests.

Center Implementation of Corrective Actions 

Stennis received reports that identified PM deficiencies from the NASA Office of 

S&MA, the NACB, and its own staff. The internal Stennis report further addressed MSS 

personnel's lack of knowledge of required PM tasks and stated that PM documentation 

was incomplete. Despite the many deficiencies identified in each of the reports, the 

Stennis S&MA office did not increase its oversight or direct the DCMA to increase its 

surveillance of the MSS PM program. Further, the Stennis S&MA office did not require 

MSS to address or correct PM deficiencies until 16 cranes were taken out of service in 

June 2000. 

The Center’s lack of oversight was also demonstrated by its failure to implement 

corrective actions from the NASA Lessons Learned Information System. A 1997 entry 

in that system reported a mishap caused by a mobile crane’s leaking outrigger. The leak 

was attributed to failure to perform scheduled PM. Crane operators continued to record 

similar problems in crane logbooks through December 1999. However, because MSS 

operators stopped maintaining logbooks in 1999, we could not determine whether similar 

problems continued or MSS initiated corrective actions. 
26 

Conclusions on Preventive Maintenance 

The keys to a successful PM program are scheduling and execution. A successful PM 

program focuses on cleaning, lubrication, correcting deficiencies, replacing minor 

components, and safety. Complete implementation of a PM program will extend 

equipment life, reduce repair and replacement costs, and ensure that equipment is safe to 

operate. As reflected in the condition of the cranes we observed and the reports we 

reviewed, the MSS PM program was clearly inadequate. More important, Stennis used 

cranes that were not safe to operate, which increased the risk of loss or harm to personnel 

and assets essential to the space propulsion program. 

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Response 

The Director, John C. Stennis Space Center, should: 

12. Direct the MSS to schedule, perform, document, and review PM as 

required by NSS/GO-1740.9B, Stennis PM policies and procedures, and the MSS 

contract. 

Management’s Response. Concur. MSS shall be directed to schedule, perform, 

document, and review PM in accordance with the contract requirements, which includes 

compliance with NSS/GO-1740.9b and Stennis policies.

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. We ask Stennis to provide additional details describing how it will 

direct MSS to perform PM tasks and to provide a planned completion date for providing 

the direction. The recommendation is resolved, but will remain undispositioned and open 

for reporting purposes until corrective actions are completed. 

13. Increase Government surveillance of the MSS PM program for cranes to 

ensure compliance with NSS/GO-1740.9B and Stennis PM policies and procedures. 

Management’s Response. Concur. See the response to Recommendation 4. 

Additionally, NASA’s Maintenance and Operations Branch of the Stennis Center 

Operations and Support Directorate monitors the PM program. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned actions are responsive 

to the recommendation. As for recommendation 4, management should provide us a 

planned date for implementing its surveillance plan. The recommendation is resolved, 

but will remain undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective actions 

are completed. 
27 

14. Direct the Manager, Safety and Mission Assurance, to coordinate with 

appropriate Center organizations to track and implement corrective actions for 

recommendations from various external and internal reviews concerning crane PM 

deficiencies. 

Management’s Response. Concur. The Manager, Safety and Mission Assurance, will 

collect, track, and facilitate closure of all existing issues documented in previous external 

and internal reviews. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. However, management should provide us a planned completion 

date for closing the recommendations from previous external and internal reviews. The 

recommendation is resolved, but will remain undispositioned and open for reporting 

purposes until corrective actions are completed. 
28 

Finding E. Wire Rope Inspections 

MSS did not perform wire rope inspections in accordance with NASA standards. 

Inadequate inspections occurred because (1) MSS did not follow inspection procedures 

and (2) Stennis did not provide adequate surveillance of wire rope conditions. As a 

result, contractors used cranes with unsafe rope conditions, increasing the risk of lifting 

failures and harm to personnel and/or assets. 

Standards for Performing Inspections 

NSS/GO-1740.9B requires monthly wire rope inspections with emphasis on deterioration 

and damage. Stennis Technical Standard 1787, "Maintenance Instruction, Wire Rope, 

Chain, and Link Inspection,” requires that the entire length of wire ropes be inspected for 

reductions in diameter, breaks, kinks, or corrosion. In addition, Stennis Standard 

Operating Procedure 960, “Inspection and Maintenance of Wire Rope, Slings, and 

Hooks," provides that cranes will not be used unless wire ropes have been inspected 

within the last 30 days. Finally, SPG 8715.1 requires that the buddy system42 be used for 

hazardous operations, including heavy hoisting and personnel lifting. 

Scheduling and Performing Wire Rope Inspections 

Scheduling and Performing Inspections. MSS did not schedule monthly wire rope 

inspections as required. For example, MSS completed two wire rope inspections on a 

mobile crane in May and August 2000, but did not perform any inspections in June or 

July. Similarly, MSS completed two inspections on another mobile crane in May and 

July, and one in June, but did not perform inspections in February or April. 

We observed MSS perform wire rope inspections on three cranes. The two inspectors 

generally followed NASA standards43 including the recording of required multiple rope 

measurements. However, MSS inspectors did not follow the standards on inspections 

prior to our observations. Inspectors recorded only one wire rope measurement on each 

of four work orders reviewed and did not use the buddy system on three of those work 

orders. 

We reviewed work orders for 161 wire rope inspections performed from September 1999 

through November 2000. MSS did not record multiple wire rope measurements on 150 

(93 percent) of the inspections, and only 5 (3 percent) inspections addressed the wire 

rope condition. Also, inspectors did not use the buddy system for 120 (75 percent) of the 

inspections. 

We also identified significant labor variances between inspections by a single employee 

and those using the buddy system. Specifically, inspections performed by one employee 

 

42 The buddy system refers to the use of two or more persons to perform hazardous operations. 43 MSS inspectors did not disconnect the cranes’ power sources as required by Technical Standard 1787. 
29 

required from 30 minutes to 2 hours, while inspections using the buddy system required 

from 2 to 6 hours. The labor variances provided further evidence that MSS 

inconsistently followed procedures for conducting wire rope inspections. 

NACB Inspections. After its May 2000 inspection, the NACB reported wire rope 

problems on some critical lift cranes. MSS inspectors had not detected those problems, 

thus raising our concerns with the adequacy of MSS inspections. For example, the 

NACB found broken wires on a mobile crane (crane number 130-106). MSS inspectors 

did not identify any problems with the crane's wire rope during their March and May 

2000 inspections. MSS replaced the wire rope on May 23, 2000. 

The NACB also reported a kink in the wire rope of a bridge crane (crane number L-56). 

MSS performed four inspections prior to the NACB's inspection; however, MSS did not 

identify any rope problems. The last MSS inspection occurred on May 22, 2000, after 

the NACB inspection; therefore, MSS should have identified the same problems found by 

the NACB. MSS replaced the wire rope on June 19, 2000. 

Finally, the NACB found wire rope clips installed backwards on a crane at the E-1 Test 

Stand. Four MSS inspections performed from February through May 2000 did not 

identify problems with the clips. Again, the May MSS inspection results should have 

mirrored the NACB's findings. MSS subsequently corrected the rope clip installation. 

Government and Contractor Oversight of Wire Rope Inspections 

Similar to the lack of oversight on PM, we found no evidence of Government 

surveillance by Stennis or DCMA with respect to wire rope inspections. We also found 

no evidence of safety oversight by MSS. 

Conclusion on Wire Rope Inspections 

The NACB report combined with our observations showed that MSS did not perform 

adequate wire rope inspections. Although MSS corrected rope deficiencies subsequent to 

the NACB report, inspection personnel should have identified and corrected those crane 

deficiencies as part of the normal, routine inspection process. Operating cranes with 

defective or improperly installed ropes could have resulted in further lifting failures at 

Stennis and harm to assets and/or personnel. 

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Response 

The Director, John C. Stennis Space Center should: 

15. Direct MSS to schedule, perform, document, and review wire rope 

inspections in accordance with NSS/GO-1740.9B, Stennis policies and procedures, 

and the MSS contract. 
30 

Management’s Response. Concur. Since wire rope inspections are a PM function, 

MSS shall be directed to perform this function as described in the response to 

Recommendation 12. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. As for recommendation 12, management should provide us 

additional details describing how it will direct MSS to perform wire rope inspections and 

a planned completion date for providing the direction. The recommendation is resolved, 

but will remain undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective actions 

are completed. 

16. Increase Government surveillance of wire rope inspections to ensure the 

inspections are completed in accordance with applicable NASA standards. 

Management’s Response. Concur. See the response to Recommendation 4. 

Evaluation of Management's Response. Management’s planned action is responsive to 

the recommendation. As for recommendation 4, we ask Stennis to provide us a planned 

completion date for implementing its surveillance plan. The recommendation is resolved, 

but will remain undispositioned and open for reporting purposes until corrective actions 

are completed.
31 

Appendix A. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Objectives

The overall objective of the audit was to determine whether Stennis and its contractors 

properly managed the Lifting Devices and Equipment (LDE) program. Specifically, we 

determined whether: 

• Stennis safely performed critical lifts, 

• LDE operators were properly trained and certified, 

• personnel operated cranes in a safe manner, 

• Mississippi Space Services (MSS) complied with maintenance requirements, 

and 

• MSS performed adequate wire rope inspections. 

Scope and Methodology 

Stennis had 83 cranes and hoists, 23 that were classified as critical lift cranes. Of the 83, 

there were 5 mobile cranes, 35 hoists, and 43 fixed (jib, auxiliary derrick, derrick, or 

bridge) cranes. To satisfy our objectives, we reviewed available documents and records 

for all 5 mobile cranes and 14 of the 44 fixed cranes. We did not review slings, hooks, or 

other crane accessories, except to verify the inventory of slings. We verified the 

accuracy and completeness of the LDE records and identified one crane that was not 

included in the Center's inventory. 

We limited our review to the three major contractors (Lockheed-Martin Space 

Operations-Stennis Programs (Lockheed Martin), MSS, and The Boeing CompanyRocketdyne Propulsion and Power (Boeing)) that operate and maintain LDE at Stennis. 

We did not include cranes owned or operated by Stennis tenants in our review. We 

interviewed Headquarters, Stennis, and contractor Safety and Mission Assurance 

(S&MA) officials associated with the operation, maintenance, and/or inspection of LDE. 

We also reviewed NASA, Stennis, and contractor standards and guidelines applicable to 

the operation, maintenance, and inspection of LDE. We examined (1) previous reports 

related to Stennis LDE operations to include Headquarters and Center S&MA reports, 

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) contract surveillance reports, and 

contractor safety and quality assurance reports, (2) reports for reviews by external 

organizations contracted for by the Center, and (3) reports issued in 1999 and 2000 on 

mishaps involving cranes. 

Audit field work consisted of reviews and observations of the following: 

• Critical lift procedures and records to determine whether Stennis complied 

with the critical lift requirements of NSS/GO-1740.9B and SPG 8715.1. 
32 

Appendix A 

• Lockheed-Martin, MSS, and Boeing training and certification data for 

operators and riggers to determine whether personnel were trained and 

certified in accordance with NASA, Stennis, and contractor requirements. 

• Crane logbooks for mobile cranes and derricks to identify problems noted by 

operators during daily inspections and to determine the objects lifted during 

operations. 

• Preventive maintenance and wire rope inspection procedures and a sample of 

work orders documenting work performed from September 1999 through 

October 2000 to determine whether MSS complied with crane maintenance 

and inspection requirements. 

• Labor, material, and other contract charges related to maintenance and 

inspections to determine costs associated with those activities. 

• Visual inspections of fixed and mobile cranes to identify safety deficiencies. 

Management Controls Reviewed 

We reviewed management controls related to the classification and performance of 

critical lifts and the training, testing, and certification of crane operators and riggers. 

Additionally, we reviewed controls related to documenting and reporting crane 

deficiencies, and scheduling, performing, and documenting crane maintenance and 

inspections. We also reviewed the safety responsibilities delegated to the DCMA for 

surveillance of the Lockheed-Martin, MSS, and Boeing contracts. We identified internal 

control weaknesses as identified in the finding sections of the report. 

Audit Field Work 

We performed field work from October 2000 through June 2001 at Stennis and NASA 

Headquarters. We performed the audit in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 
33 

Appendix B. Summary of Process Verification Reviews 

Process Verification Team Safety Concern 1997 1999 2000 

 

Lack of staffing in the Safety and Mission Assurance 

(S&MA) office. 

X X -- 

Lack of S&MA support at the E Complex and other areas. -- X -- 

The Stennis Safety Manual does not reference NASA 

Handbook 1700.1 (V-1B), NASA Safety Standards 1740.11 

and 1740.12. 

X -- -- 

Annual NASA safety inspections of resident agencies and 

contractor safety programs are behind schedule. 

X -- -- 

Stennis does not have a civil service program manager to 

ensure configuration management and control of lifting 

devices and equipment (LDE). Roles and responsibilities of 

LDE manager are not defined. 

X X X 

Stennis LDE policies and procedures are not current. X X X 

Stennis LDE inventory is not current. X X X 

Stennis Procedures and Guidelines (SPG) 8715.1, Part I, 

LDE, has not been finalized. 

X -- -- 

Stennis does not have one lead contractor managing its LDE 

program. 

-- X -- 

Stennis Standard 99-016 does not clearly define LDE 

configuration management, including record keeping. 

-- -- X 

SPG 8715.1, Part I, Section 2.18, does not require an LDE 

committee chaired by the LDE manager or identify 

committee responsibilities. 

-- -- X 

Some of Stennis’ LDE was not tagged and/or labeled, and 

slings were not inventoried or certified. 

-- -- X 

LDE maintenance records and supporting documentation 

were difficult to locate and may not exist. 

-- -- X 

Stennis did not have a long-term, comprehensive, 

sustainable LDE program. 

-- -- X 
34 

Appendix C. North American Crane Bureau Inspection Results 

In May 2000, the North American Crane Bureau (NACB) recommended that to assure 

operational readiness, Stennis should establish a detailed maintenance and inspection 

program, with special emphasis on wire ropes. The NACB also reported that deficiencies 

and safety concerns, such as no capacity markings or warning tags, lack of lubrication, 

and rust were prevalent throughout the facility. The following table summarizes the 

NACB's findings. 

Summary of NACB Findings 

Critical Lift Equipment 

No Warnin

g Ta

g

Need Lubricant No Operator Manual Equipment Wear\Rust 

H

ydraulic Oil Low 

Wire Rope Problem No or Poor Inspection Missin

g Parts 

Poor Clearance Leakin

g Parts 

No Load Rate Markin

g

Loose Debris Present No Load Chart No Fire Extin

guisher 

No Hand Si

gnal Chart 

Mechanical Problem 

 

Gaffrey, 4 Ton Hoist X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Terex, 75 Ton Mobile Crane -- -- X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Shepard, 25 Ton Crane X -- -- X -- X X X -- -- -- X -- -- -- --

Reading, 15 Ton Crane X X -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X -- -- -- --

Shepard Niles, 25 Ton Crane -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Stewart Systems, 25 Ton Crane X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Dixie Crane, 10 Ton Crane X X -- -- -- X -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- X

P&H, 10 Ton Hoist X -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- X

Robbins & Myers, 3 Ton 

Monorail 

X -- -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- X

American Hoist Derrick -- X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- X -- -- --

American Hoist, 175 Ton -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X 

American Hoist Derrick, 200 

Ton 

-- -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Yale Hoist, 20 Ton X -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- --

American Hoist, 37.5 Ton -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- X -- -- X -- -- --

Dixie Crane, 5 Ton X X -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X

Terex 8.5 Ton Hydraulic Crane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Totals 9 6 4 8 1 5 1 1 2 3 4 2 3 1 1 4
35 

Appendix D. Management’s Response 
36 

Appendix D 
37 

Appendix D 
38 

Appendix D 
39 

Appendix E. Report Distribution

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters

A/Administrator 

AI/Associate Deputy Administrator 

AA/Chief of Staff 

AB/Associate Deputy Administrator for Institutions 

B/Acting Chief Financial Officer 

B/Comptroller 

BF/Director, Financial Management Division 

G/General Counsel 

H/Associate Administrator for Procurement 

J/Associate Administrator for Management Systems 

JM/Director, Management Assessment Division 

L/Acting Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs 

P/Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

R/Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology 

S/Associate Administrator for Space Science 

U/Acting Associate Administrator for Biological and Physical Science 

X/Director, Office of Security Management and Safeguards 

Y/Associate Administrator for Earth Sciences 

Z/Acting Associate Administrator for Policy and Plans 

NASA Centers 

Director, Ames Research Center 

Director, Dryden Flight Research Center 

Director, Goddard Space Flight Center 

Director, John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Acting Director, Johnson Space Center 

Director, Kennedy Space Center 

Chief Counsel, John F. Kennedy Space Center 

Director, Langley Research Center 

Director, Marshall Space Flight Center 

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals 

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy 

Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division, Office of Management and 

 Budget 

Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch, Energy and Science Division, Office 

 of Management and Budget 
40 

Appendix E 

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals (Cont.) 

Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, General Accounting 

 Office 

Senior Professional Staff Member, Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and 

 Space

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member – Congressional Committees and 

Subcommittees 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space 

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 

House Committee on Appropriations 

House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 

House Committee on Government Reform 

House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and 

Intergovernmental Relations 

House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations 

House Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy 

House Committee on Science 

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

Congressional Member 

Honorable Pete Sessions, U.S. House of Representatives
NASA Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

Reader Survey 

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

usefulness of our reports. We wish to make our reports responsive to our customers’ 

interests, consistent with our statutory responsibility. Could you help us by completing 

our reader survey? For your convenience, the questionnaire can be completed 

electronically through our homepage at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html

or can be mailed to the Assistant Inspector General for Audits; NASA Headquarters, 

Code W, Washington, DC 20546-0001. 

Report Title: Final Report on Audit of the Safety of Lifting Devices and Equipment at 

 Stennis Space Center 

Report Number: Report Date: 

Circle the appropriate rating for the following statements. 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree 

Strongly 

Disagree N/A 

1. The report was clear, readable, and 

logically organized. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

2. The report was concise and to the 

point. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

3. We effectively communicated the 

audit objectives, scope, and 

methodology. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

4. The report contained sufficient 

information to support the finding(s) 

in a balanced and objective manner. 

5 4 3 2 1 N/A 

Overall, how would you rate the report? 

 Excellent  Fair

 Very Good  Poor

 Good

If you have any additional comments or wish to elaborate on any of the above 

responses, please write them here. Use additional paper if necessary. 
How did you use the report? 

How could we improve our report? 

How would you identify yourself? (Select one) 

 Congressional Staff  Media 

 NASA Employee  Public Interest 

 Private Citizen  Other: 

 Government: Federal: State: Local: 

May we contact you about your comments? 

Yes: No: 

Name: 

Telephone: ________________________ 

 

Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey. 

 
Major Contributors to the Report 

Kevin J. Carson, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

Sandra A. Massey, Program Director for Safety and Technology Audits 

Oscar E. Lindley, Auditor 

Lamar Brickhouse, Auditor 

Nancy Cipolla, Report Process Manager