Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization:
Background and Issues for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
February 11, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34391
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Summary
The Coast Guard’s FY2013 budget initiated a new project for the design and construction of a
new polar icebreaker. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2013 budget requested $8 million in
FY2013 acquisition funding to initiate survey and design activities for the ship, and projected an
additional $852 million in FY2013-FY2017 for acquiring the ship. The Coast Guard’s FY2013
budget anticipated awarding a construction contract for the ship “within the next five years” and
taking delivery on the ship “within a decade.”
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget requested $2 million in acquisition funding to
continue survey and design activities for the ship, or $118 million less than the $120 million that
was projected for FY2014 under the FY2013 budget. The Coast Guard’s FY2014 budget
submission projects an additional $228 million in FY2015-FY2018 for acquiring the ship,
including $128 million in FY2015-FY2017, or $604 million less than the $732 million that was
projected for FY2015-FY2017 under the Coast Guard’s FY2013 budget submission. The Coast
Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget anticipates awarding a construction contract for the ship
“within the next four years.”
Coast Guard polar icebreakers perform a variety of missions supporting U.S. interests in polar
regions. The Coast Guard’s two existing heavy polar icebreakers—Polar Star and Polar Sea—
have exceeded their originally intended 30-year service lives. Polar Star was placed in caretaker
status on July 1, 2006. Congress in FY2009 and FY2010 provided funding to repair it and return
it to service for an additional 7 to 10 years of service; the repair work was completed and the ship
was reactivated on December 14, 2012.
On June 25, 2010, the Coast Guard announced that Polar Sea had suffered an unexpected engine
casualty; the ship was unavailable for operation after that. The Coast Guard placed Polar Sea in
commissioned, inactive status on October 14, 2011. Section 222 of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 2838/P.L. 112-213 of December 20, 2012) prohibits the Coast
Guard from removing any part of Polar Sea and from transferring, relinquishing ownership of,
dismantling, or recycling the ship until it submits a business case analysis of the options for and
costs of reactivating the ship and extending its service life to at least September 30, 2022, so as to
maintain U.S. polar icebreaking capabilities and fulfill the Coast Guard’s high latitude mission
needs, as identified in the Coast Guard’s July 2010 High Latitude Study.
The Coast Guard’s third polar icebreaker—Healy—entered service in 2000. Compared to Polar
Star and Polar Sea, Healy has less icebreaking capability (it is considered a medium polar
icebreaker), but more capability for supporting scientific research. The ship is used primarily for
supporting scientific research in the Arctic.
With the reactivation of Polar Star, the operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet consists of one
heavy polar icebreaker (Polar Star) and one medium polar icebreaker (Healy). The new polar
icebreaker for which initial acquisition funding is requested in the FY2013 budget would replace
Polar Star at about the time Polar Star’s 7- to 10-year reactivation period ends.
The Coast Guard’s strategy document for the Arctic region, released on May 21, 2013, states that
“The United States must have adequate icebreaking capability to support research that advances
fundamental understanding of the region and its evolution,” and that “The Nation must also make
Congressional Research Service
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
a strategic investment in icebreaking capability to enable access to the high latitudes over the
long-term.”
Potential issues for Congress regarding Coast Guard polar icebreaker modernization include the
following:
• the impact on the project for a new polar icebreaker of the March 1, 2013,
sequester on FY2013 funding;
• the potential impact on the project for a new polar icebreaker of a possible
sequester on FY2014 funding that might occur in late 2013 or early 2014 under
the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011;
• the sufficiency of the acquisition funding requested for FY2014 and projected for
FY2015-FY2018 for the project for a new polar icebreaker;
• the numbers and capabilities of polar icebreakers the Coast Guard will need in
the future;
• the disposition of Polar Sea;
• whether the new polar icebreaker initiated in the FY2013 budget should be
funded with incremental funding (as proposed in the Coast Guard’s Five Year
Capital Investment Plan) or full funding in a single year, as normally required
under the executive branch’s full funding policy;
• whether new polar icebreakers should be funded entirely in the Coast Guard
budget, or partly or entirely in some other part of the federal budget, such as the
Department of Defense (DOD) budget, the National Science Foundation (NSF)
budget, or both;
• whether to provide future icebreaking capability through construction of new
ships or service life extensions of existing polar icebreakers; and
• whether future polar icebreakers should be acquired through a traditional
acquisition or a leasing arrangement.
Congressional Research Service
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Missions of U.S. Polar Icebreakers ........................................................................................... 1
Current U.S. Polar Icebreakers .................................................................................................. 2
Three Coast Guard Ships ..................................................................................................... 2
One National Science Foundation Ship............................................................................... 6
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 7
January 2014 Implementation Plan for National Strategy for Arctic Region ............................ 8
Recent Studies Relating to Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers ....................................................... 9
Coast Guard High Latitude Study Provided to Congress in July 2011 ............................... 9
January 2011 DHS Office of Inspector General Report .................................................... 12
2010 U.S. Arctic Research Commission Report ............................................................... 15
2007 National Research Council Report ........................................................................... 15
Cost Estimates for Certain Modernization Options ................................................................. 18
New Replacement Ships .................................................................................................... 18
25-Year Service Life Extensions ....................................................................................... 19
Reactivate Polar Sea for Several Years ............................................................................. 19
Funding for New Polar Icebreaker .......................................................................................... 19
FY2013 Budget Submission .............................................................................................. 19
FY2014 Budget Submission .............................................................................................. 19
FY2013 and FY2014 Five Year Capital Investment Plans (CIPs) Compared ................... 20
Recent Acquisition Steps ......................................................................................................... 20
December 1, 2011, Hearing ..................................................................................................... 22
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 23
Impact of March 1, 2013, Sequester on FY2013 Funding ...................................................... 23
Amount of Acquisition Funding Requested for FY2014 and Projected for FY2015-
FY2018 ................................................................................................................................. 23
Number and Capabilities of Future Polar Icebreakers ............................................................. 24
Factors to Consider............................................................................................................ 24
Notional Arguments for Various Numbers ........................................................................ 27
Disposition of Polar Sea ......................................................................................................... 27
Incremental Funding vs. Full Funding .................................................................................... 28
Funding Ships in Coast Guard Budget or Elsewhere .............................................................. 29
New Construction vs. Service Life Extension ......................................................................... 31
Procurement vs. Leasing ......................................................................................................... 32
Legislative Activity for FY2014 .................................................................................................... 35
FY2014 Funding Request ........................................................................................................ 35
FY2014 DHS Appropriations Act (Division F of H.R. 3547/P.L. 113-76) .............................. 35
House ................................................................................................................................. 35
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 35
Final Version ..................................................................................................................... 38
Figures
Figure 1. Polar Star and Polar Sea .................................................................................................. 3
Congressional Research Service
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 2. Polar Sea .......................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Healy ................................................................................................................................ 6
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Polar Icebreakers ........................................................................................................ 7
Table 2. Uses of Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers in FY2005-FY2007 ............................................. 8
Table 3. Funding for Acquisition of New Polar Icebreaker Under FY2013 and FY2014
Five Year Capital Investment Plans ............................................................................................ 20
Table 4. Major Icebreakers Around the World ............................................................................... 26
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 39
Congressional Research Service
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
This report provides background information and issues for Congress on the sustainment and
modernization of the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet, which performs a variety of missions
supporting U.S. interests in polar regions. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget requested
$2 million to continue survey and design activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker, or
$118 million less than the $120 million that was projected for FY2014 for the new polar
icebreaker under the FY2013 budget. The proposed FY2014 budget anticipates awarding a
construction contract for the ship “within the next four years.”
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify Coast Guard plans for sustaining
and modernizing its polar icebreaking fleet. Congressional decisions on this issue could affect
Coast Guard funding requirements, the Coast Guard’s ability to perform its polar missions, and
the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.
Background
Missions of U.S. Polar Icebreakers
The missions of U.S. polar icebreakers can be summarized as follows:
• conducting and supporting scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctic;
• defending U.S. sovereignty in the Arctic by helping to maintain a U.S. presence
in U.S. territorial waters in the region;
• defending other U.S. interests in polar regions, including economic interests in
waters that are within the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) north of Alaska;
• monitoring sea traffic in the Arctic, including ships bound for the United States;
and
• conducting other typical Coast Guard missions (such as search and rescue, law
enforcement, and protection of marine resources) in Arctic waters, including U.S.
territorial waters north of Alaska.
Operations to support National Science Foundation (NSF) research activities in the Arctic and
Antarctic have accounted in the past for a significant portion of U.S. polar icebreaker operations.1
Supporting NSF research in the Antarctic has included performing—or, in more recent years,
standing ready to assist in—an annual mission, called Operation Deep Freeze, to break through
the Antarctic ice so as to resupply McMurdo Station, the large U.S. Antarctic research station
located on the shore of McMurdo Sound, near the Ross Ice Shelf.
1 This passage, beginning with “The missions of…”, originated in an earlier iteration of this CRS report and was later
transferred by GAO with minor changes to Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:]Efforts to Identify Arctic
Requirements Are Ongoing, but More Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial, GAO-10-
870, September 2010, p. 53.
Congressional Research Service
1
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Although polar ice is diminishing due to climate change, observers generally expect that this
development will not eliminate the need for U.S. polar icebreakers, and in some respects might
increase mission demands for them. Even with the diminishment of polar ice, there are still
significant ice-covered areas in the polar regions. Diminishment of polar ice could lead in coming
years to increased commercial ship, cruise ship, and naval surface ship operations, as well as
increased exploration for oil and other resources, in the Arctic—activities that could require
increased levels of support from polar icebreakers.2 Changing ice conditions in Antarctic waters
have made the McMurdo resupply mission more challenging since 2000.3 An April 18, 2011,
press report states that the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp,
sees plenty of reasons the United States will need polar icebreakers for the “foreseeable
future,” despite speculation that thinning ice in the Arctic could make the icebreakers
replaceable with other ice-hardened ships, the admiral said last week….
“I don’t see that causing us to back down on some minimal level of polar icebreakers,” Papp
told Inside the Navy. “The fact of the matter is, there’s still winter ice that’s forming. It’s
coming down pretty far. We don't need to get up there just during summer months when
there’s open water.”4
The Coast Guard’s strategy document for the Arctic region, released on May 21, 2013, states that
“The United States must have adequate icebreaking capability to support research that advances
fundamental understanding of the region and its evolution,” and that “The Nation must also make
a strategic investment in icebreaking capability to enable access to the high latitudes over the
long-term.”5
Current U.S. Polar Icebreakers
The U.S. polar icebreaker fleet currently includes four ships—three Coast Guard ships and one
ship operated by the NSF. The ships are described briefly below.
Three Coast Guard Ships
The Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers are multimission ships that can break through ice,
support scientific research operations, and perform other missions typically performed by Coast
Guard ships.
2 For more on changes in the Arctic due to diminishment of Arctic ice, see CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic:
Background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Ronald O'Rourke.
3 National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, pp. 6-7, 14, 63.
4 Cid Standifer, “Adm. Papp: Coast Guard Still Needs Icebreakers For Winter, Antarctic,” Inside the Navy, April 18,
2011.
5 United States Coast Guard Arctic Strategy, Washington, May 2013, p. 35; accessed May 24, 2013, at
http://www.uscg.mil/seniorleadership/DOCS/CG_Arctic_Strategy.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Heavy Polar Icebreakers Polar Star and Polar Sea
Polar Star (WAGB-10) and Polar Sea (WAGB-11),6 sister ships built to the same general design
(Figure 1 and Figure 2), were procured in the early 1970s as replacements for earlier U.S.
icebreakers. They were designed for 30-year service lives, and were built by Lockheed
Shipbuilding of Seattle, WA, a division of Lockheed that also built ships for the U.S. Navy, but
which exited the shipbuilding business in the late 1980s.
The ships are 399 feet long and displace about 13,200 tons.7 They are among the world’s most
powerful non-nuclear-powered icebreakers, with a capability to break through ice up to 6 feet
thick at a speed of 3 knots. Because of their icebreaking capability, they are considered heavy
polar icebreakers. In addition to a crew of 134, each ship can embark a scientific research staff of
32 people.
Figure 1. Polar Star and Polar Sea
(Side by side in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica)
Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcpolarsea/history.asp on April 21, 2011.
6 The designation WAGB means Coast Guard icebreaker. More specifically, W means Coast Guard ship, A means
auxiliary, G means miscellaneous purpose, and B means icebreaker.
7 By comparison, the Coast Guard’s new National Security Cutters—its new high-endurance cutters—are about 418
feet long and displace roughly 4,000 tons.
Congressional Research Service
3
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Polar Star was commissioned into service on January 19, 1976, and consequently is now several
years beyond its intended 30-year service life. Due to worn out electric motors and other
problems, the Coast Guard placed the ship in caretaker status on July 1, 2006.8 Congress in
FY2009 and FY2010 provided funding to repair Polar Star and return it to service for 7 to 10
years; the repair work, which reportedly cost about $57 million, was completed, and the ship was
reactivated on December 14, 2012.9 The ship is to undergo testing during the summer of 2013,
and be ready for operations in FY2014.10 Although the repair work on the ship was intended to
give it another 7 to 10 years of service, an August 30, 2010, press report quoted the Commandant
of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, as saying, “We’re getting her back into service, but it’s
a little uncertain to me how many more years we can get out of her in her current condition, even
after we do the engine repairs.”11
Figure 2. Polar Sea
Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcpolarsea/img/PSEApics/Ful Ship2.jpg on
April 21, 2011.
Polar Sea was commissioned into service on February 23, 1978, and consequently is also beyond
its originally intended 30-year service life. In 2006, the Coast Guard completed a rehabilitation
project that extended the ship’s expected service life to 2014. On June 25, 2010, however, the
Coast Guard announced that Polar Sea had suffered an unexpected engine casualty, and the ship
was unavailable for operation after that.12 The Coast Guard placed Polar Sea in commissioned,
8 Source for July 1, 2006, date: U.S. Coast Guard email to CRS on February 22, 2008. The Coast Guard’s official term
for caretaker status is “In Commission, Special.”
9 See, for example, Kyung M. Song, “Icebreaker Polar Star Gets $57 Million Overhaul,” Seattle Times, December 14,
2012.
10 Source: Email from Coast Guard Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS, February 23, 2012.
11 Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010.
12 On June 25, 2010, the Coast Guard announced that
POLAR SEA suffered an unexpected engine casualty and will be unable to deploy on its scheduled
fall 2010 Arctic patrol and may be unavailable for Operation Deep Freeze [the annual mission to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
inactive status on October 14, 2011. The Coast Guard transferred certain major equipment from
Polar Sea to Polar Star to facilitate Polar Star’s return to service.13
Medium Polar Icebreaker Healy
Healy (WAGB-20) (Figure 3) was procured in the early 1990s as a complement to Polar Star and
Polar Sea, and was commissioned into service on August 21, 2000. The ship was built by
Avondale Industries, a shipyard located near New Orleans, LA, that built numerous Coast Guard
and Navy ships, and which now forms part of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII).14
Healy is a bit larger than Polar Star and Polar Sea—it is 420 feet long and displaces about 16,000
tons. Compared to Polar Star and Polar Sea, Healy has less icebreaking capability (it is
considered a medium polar icebreaker), but more capability for supporting scientific research.
The ship can break through ice up to 4½ feet thick at a speed of 3 knots, and embark a scientific
research staff of 35 (with room for another 15 surge personnel and 2 visitors). The ship is used
primarily for supporting scientific research in the Arctic.
(...continued)
break through the Antarctic ice so as to resupply McMurdo Station], Dec. 20 to Jan 2, 2011.
POLAR SEA will likely be in a maintenance status and unavailable for operation until at least
January 2011….
Currently, the 420-foot CGC HEALY, commissioned in 1999, is the service’s sole operational
polar region icebreaker. While the HEALY is capable of supporting a wide range of Coast Guard
missions in the polar regions, it is a medium icebreaker capable of breaking ice up to 4.5-feet thick
at three knots.
The impact on POLAR SEA’s scheduled 2011 Arctic winter science deployment, scheduled for
Jan. 3 to Feb. 23, 2011, is not yet known and depends on the scope of required engine repair.
(“Icebreaker POLAR SEA Sidelined By Engine Troubles,” Coast Guard Compass (Official Blog of
the U.S. Coast Guard), June 25, 2010.)
A June 25, 2010, report stated that “inspections of the Polar Sea’s main diesel engines revealed excessive wear in 33
cylinder assemblies. The Coast Guard is investigating the root cause and hopes to have an answer by August.” (“USCG
Cancels Polar Icebreaker’s Fall Deployment,” DefenseNews.com, June 25, 2010.) Another June 25 report stated that
“five of [the ship’s] six mighty engines are stilled, some with worn pistons essentially welded to their sleeves.”
(Andrew C. Revkin, “America’s Heavy Icebreakers Are Both Broken Down,” Dot Earth (New York Times blog), June
25, 2010.)
13 Source: October 17, 2011, email to CRS from Coast Guard Congressional Affairs office.
14 HII was previously owned by Northrop Grumman, during which time it was known as Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding.
Congressional Research Service
5
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 3. Healy
Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Healy_CGC_1_300.jpg on
April 21, 2011.
One National Science Foundation Ship
The nation’s fourth polar icebreaker is Nathaniel B. Palmer, which was built for the NSF in 1992
by North American Shipbuilding, of Larose, LA. The ship, called Palmer for short, is owned by
Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) of Galliano, LA, a firm that owns and operates research ships
and offshore deepwater service ships.15 NSF uses a contractor, Raytheon Polar Services Company
(RPSC), to lease the ship from ECO.16 Palmer is considerably smaller than the Coast Guard’s
three polar icebreakers—it is 308 feet long and has a displacement of about 6,500 tons. It is
operated by a crew of about 22, and can embark a scientific staff of 27 to 37.17
Unlike the Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers, which are multimission ships, Palmer was
purpose-built as a single-mission ship for conducting and supporting scientific research in the
Antarctic. It has less icebreaking capability than the Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers, being
capable of breaking ice up to 3 feet thick at speeds of 3 knots. This capability is sufficient for
15 For more on ECO, see the firm’s website at http://www.chouest.com/.
16 For more on RPSC, see the division’s website at http://rpsc.raytheon.com/.
17 Sources vary on the exact number of scientific staff that can be embarked on Palmer. For some basic information on
the ship, see http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/support/nathpalm.jsp,
http://www.usap.gov/vesselScienceAndOperations/documents/prvnews_june03.pdfprvnews_june03.pdf,
http://nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/treaty/pdf/plans0607/15plan07.pdf,
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1996/nsf9693/fls.htm, and
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/nsf.htm.
Congressional Research Service
6
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
breaking through the more benign ice conditions found in the vicinity of the Antarctic Peninsula,
so as to resupply Palmer Station, a U.S. research station on the peninsula. Some observers might
view Palmer not so much as an icebreaker as an oceanographic research ship with enough
icebreaking capability for the Antarctic Peninsula. Palmer’s icebreaking capability is not
considered sufficient to perform the McMurdo resupply mission.
Summary
In summary, the U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently includes
• two heavy polar icebreakers (Polar Star and Polar Sea), one of which is
operational, that are designed to perform missions in either polar area, including
the challenging McMurdo resupply mission;
• one medium polar icebreaker (Healy) that that is used primarily for scientific
research in the Arctic; and
• one ship (Palmer) that is used for scientific research in the Antarctic.
Table 1 summarizes the four ships. Table 2 shows the uses of the three Coast Guard polar
icebreakers in FY2005-FY2007 by operational hours.
Table 1. U.S. Polar Icebreakers
Polar Star
Polar Sea
Healy
Palmer
Operator
USCG
USCG
USCG NSF
U.S.-Government owned?
Yes
Yes
Yes Noa
Currently operational?
Yes (reactivated on
No
Yes Yes
December 14, 2012)
Entered service
1976
1978
2000 1992
Length (feet)
399
399
420 308
Displacement (tons)
13,200
13,200
16,000 6,500
Icebreaking capability at 3
6 feet
6 feet
4.5 feet
3 feet
knots (ice thickness in feet)
Ice ramming capability (ice
21 feet
21 feet
8 feet
n/a
thickness in feet)
Operating temperature
-60o Fahrenheit
-60o Fahrenheit
-50o Fahrenheit n/a
Crew (when operational)
155b
155b
85c 22
Additional scientific staff
32
32
35d 27-37
Sources: Prepared by CRS using data from U.S. Coast Guard, National Research Council, National Science
Foundation, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General, and (for Palmer) additional
online reference sources. n/a is not available.
a. Owned by Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) of Galliano, LA, and leased to NSF through Raytheon Polar
Services Company (RPSC).
b. Includes 24 officers, 20 chief petty officers, 102 enlisted, and 9 in the aviation detachment.
c. Includes 19 officers, 12 chief petty officers, and 54 enlisted.
d. In addition to 85 crew members 85 and 35 scientists, the ship can accommodate another 15 surge
personnel and 2 visitors.
Congressional Research Service
7
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 2. Uses of Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers in FY2005-FY2007
(in mission hours)
Polar Star
Polar Sea
Healy
Mission
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
area
05
06
07
05
06
07
05
06
07
SAR
31
2
ATON
Ice
Ops
1,809 1,642
2,658
3,563 3,210 2,930
MEP
16
LMR
193
PWCS
DR
121
94
Support 34
1
802
21
256
424
596
Total
2,066
1,642
0
1
802
2,818
3,819
3,634
3,620
Source: U.S. Coast Guard data provided to CRS on June 12 and 20, 2008.
Notes: SAR = search and rescue; ATON = aids to navigation; Ice Ops = ice operations, polar icebreaking and
domestic ice; MEP = marine environmental protection; LMR = living marine resources; PWCS = ports,
waterways, and coastal security; DR = defense readiness; Support = includes operations such as training, public
affairs, cooperation with federal, state, and local agencies.
Regarding the data shown in Table 2, the Coast Guard states further that
for CGC [Coast Guard Cutter] HEALY, all of the Polar Operations hours are either transit
to/from the operating area or scientific research. For CGC POLAR SEA/POLAR STAR, all
of the Polar Operations hours are transit to/from the operating area, scientific research or
mobility logistics (icebreaking for re-supply). We estimate 25% transit / 75% scientific
research for HEALY and 50% transit / 10% scientific research / 40% mobility logistics for
POLAR SEA/POLAR STAR.
January 2014 Implementation Plan for National Strategy for
Arctic Region
On May 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released a document entitled National Strategy for
the Arctic Region.18 On January 30, 2014, the Obama Administration released an implementation
plan for this strategy.19 Of the 36 or so specific initiatives in the implementation plan, one is
entitled “Sustain federal capability to conduct maritime operations in ice-impacted waters.” The
implementation plan states the following regarding this initiative:
Objective: Ensure the United States maintains icebreaking and ice-strengthened ship
capability with sufficient capacity to project a sovereign U.S. maritime presence, support
18 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, May 2013, 11 pp.; accessed May 14, 2013, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf. The document includes a cover letter from President Obama dated May
10, 2013.
19 The White House new release about the release of the implementation plan was posted at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/30/white-house-releases-implementation-plan-national-strategy-arctic-
region. The document is posted at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
implementation_plan_for_the_national_strategy_for_the_arctic_region_-_fi.... pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
U.S. interests in the Polar Regions and facilitate research that advances the fundamental
understanding of the Arctic.
Next Steps: The Federal Government requires the ability to conduct operations in ice-
impacted waters in the Arctic. As maritime activity in the Arctic region increases, expanded
access will be required. Next steps include:
• The lead and supporting Departments and Agencies will develop a document that lists
the capabilities needed to operate in ice-impacted waters to support Federal activities in the
Polar Regions and emergent sovereign responsibilities over the next ten to twenty years by
the end of 2014.
• Develop long-term plans to sustain Federal capability to physically access the Arctic
with sufficient capacity to support U.S. interests by the end of 2017.
Measuring Progress: Sustaining federal capability will be demonstrated through the Federal
Government’s ability to conduct operations in the Arctic to support statutory missions and
sovereign responsibilities, and to advance interests in the region. Progress in implementing
this objective will be measured by completion of the capabilities document, and long term
sustainment plan.
Lead Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Supporting Agencies: Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration), Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of
Transportation, National Science Foundation[.]20
Recent Studies Relating to Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers
A number of studies have been conducted in recent years to assess U.S. requirements for polar
icebreakers and options for sustaining and modernizing the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet.
This section presents the findings of some of these studies.
Coast Guard High Latitude Study Provided to Congress in July 2011
In July 2011, the Coast Guard provided to Congress a study on the Coast Guard’s missions and
capabilities for operations in high-latitude (i.e., polar) areas. The study, commonly known as the
High Latitude Study, is dated July 2010 on its cover. The High Latitude Study concluded the
following:
[The study] concludes that future capability and capacity gaps will significantly impact four
[Coast Guard] mission areas in the Arctic: Defense Readiness, Ice Operations, Marine
Environmental Protection, and Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security. These mission areas
address the protection of important national interests in a geographic area where other
nations are actively pursuing their own national goals....
The common and dominant contributor to these significant mission impacts is the gap in
polar icebreaking capability. The increasing obsolescence of the Coast Guard’s icebreaker
fleet will further exacerbate mission performance gaps in the coming years....
20 Implementation Plan for The National Strategy for the Arctic Region, January 2014, pp. 8-9.
Congressional Research Service
9
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
The gap in polar icebreaking capacity has resulted in a lack of at-sea time for crews and
senior personnel and a corresponding gap in training and leadership. In addition to providing
multi-mission capability and intrinsic mobility, a helicopter-capable surface unit would
eliminate the need for acquiring an expensive shore-based infrastructure that may only be
needed on a seasonal or occasional basis. The most capable surface unit would be a polar
icebreaker. Polar icebreakers can transit safely in a variety of ice conditions and have the
endurance to operate far from logistics bases. The Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers have
conducted a wide range of planned and unscheduled Coast Guard missions in the past. Polar
icebreakers possess the ability to carry large numbers of passengers, cargo, boats, and
helicopters. Polar icebreakers also have substantial command, control, and communications
capabilities. The flexibility and mobility of polar icebreakers would assist the Coast Guard in
closing future mission performance gaps effectively....
Existing capability and capacity gaps are expected to significantly impact future Coast Guard
performance in two Antarctic mission areas: Defense Readiness and Ice Operations. Future
gaps may involve an inability to carry out probable and easily projected mission
requirements, such as the McMurdo resupply, or readiness to respond to less-predictable
events. By their nature, contingencies requiring the use of military capabilities often occur
quickly. As is the case in the Arctic, the deterioration of the Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet is
the primary driver for this significant mission impact. This will further widen mission
performance gaps in the coming years. The recently issued Naval Operations Concept 2010
requires a surface presence in both the Arctic and Antarctic. This further exacerbates the
capability gap left by the deterioration of the icebreaker fleet....
The significant deterioration of the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet and the emerging mission
demands to meet future functional requirements in the high latitude regions dictate that the
Coast Guard acquire material solutions to close the capability gaps....
To meet the Coast Guard mission functional requirement, the Coast Guard icebreaking fleet
must be capable of supporting the following missions:
• Arctic North Patrol. Continuous multimission icebreaker presence in the Arctic.
• Arctic West Science. Spring and summer science support in the Arctic.
• Antarctic, McMurdo Station resupply. Planned deployment for break-in, supply ship
escort, and science support. This mission, conducted in the Antarctic summer, also
requires standby icebreaker support for backup in the event the primary vessel cannot
complete the mission.
• Thule Air Base Resupply and Polar Region Freedom of Navigation Transits.
Provide vessel escort operations in support of the Military Sealift Command’s Operation
Pacer Goose; then complete any Freedom of Navigation exercises in the region.
In addition, the joint Naval Operations Concept establishes the following mission
requirements:
• Assured access and assertion of U.S. policy in the Polar Regions. The current
demand for this mission requires continuous icebreaker presence in both Polar Regions.
Considering these missions, the analysis yields the following findings:
• The Coast Guard requires three heavy and three medium icebreakers to fulfill its
statutory missions. These icebreakers are necessary to (1) satisfy Arctic winter and
Congressional Research Service
10
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
transition season demands and (2) provide sufficient capacity to also execute summer
missions. Single-crewed icebreakers have sufficient capacity for all current and
expected statutory missions. Multiple crewing provides no advantage because the
number of icebreakers required is driven by winter and shoulder season requirements.
Future use of multiple or augmented crews could provide additional capacity needed to
absorb mission growth.
• The Coast Guard requires six heavy and four medium icebreakers to fulfill its
statutory missions and maintain the continuous presence requirements of the
Naval Operations Concept. Consistent with current practice, these icebreakers are
single-crewed and homeported in Seattle Washington.
• Applying crewing and home porting alternatives reduces the overall requirement
to four heavy and two medium icebreakers. This assessment of non-material
solutions shows that the reduced number of icebreakers can be achieved by having all
vessels operate with multiple crews and two of the heavy icebreakers homeporting in the
Southern Hemisphere.
Leasing was also considered as a nonmaterial solution. While there is no dispute that the
Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet is in need of recapitalization, the decision to acquire this
capability through purchase of new vessels, reconstruction of existing ships, or commercial
lease of suitable vessels must be resolved to provide the best value to the taxpayer. The
multi-mission nature of the Coast Guard may provide opportunities to conduct some subset
of its missions with non government-owned vessels. However, serious consideration must be
given to the fact that the inherently governmental missions of the Coast Guard must be
performed using government-owned and operated vessels. An interpretation of the national
policy is needed to determine the resource level that best supports the nation’s interests....
The existing icebreaker capacity, two inoperative heavy icebreakers and an operational
medium icebreaker, does not represent a viable capability to the federal government. The
time needed to augment this capability is on the order of 10 years. At that point, around
2020, the heavy icebreaking capability bridging strategy expires.21
At a July 27, 2011, hearing on U.S. economic interests in the Arctic before the Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee, the following exchange occurred:
SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE: On the high latitude study, do you agree with—and
those—I would like to also hear from you, Admiral Titley, as well, on these requirements in
terms of Coast Guard vessels as I understand it, they want to have—I guess, it was a three
medium ice breakers. Am in correct in saying that? Three medium ice breakers.
ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP, COMMANDANT OF THE COAST GUARD: I agree with the
mission analysis and as you look at the requirements for the things that we might do up there,
if it is in the nation’s interest, it identifies a minimum requirement for three heavy ice
breakers and three medium ice breakers and then if you want a persistent presence up there,
it would require—and also doing things such as breaking out (inaudible) and other
responsibilities, then it would take up to a maximum six heavy and four medium.
SNOWE: Right. Do you agree with that?
21 United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, pp. 10-13, 15.
Congressional Research Service
11
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
PAPP: If we were to be charged with carrying out those full responsibilities, yes, ma’am.
Those are the numbers that you would need to do it.
SNOWE: Admiral Titley, how would you respond to the high latitude study and has the
Navy conducted its own assessment of its capability?
REAR ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY, OCEANORGRAPHER AND NAVIGATOR OF THE
NAVY: Ma’am, we are in the process right now of conducting what we call a capabilities
based assessment that will be out in the summer of this year.
We are getting ready to finish that—the Coast Guard has been a key component of the
Navy’s task force on climate change, literally since day one when the Chief of Naval
Operations set this up, that morning, we had the Coast Guard invited as a member of our
executive steering committee.
So we have been working very closely with the Coast Guard, with the Department of
Homeland Security, and I think Admiral Papp—said it best as far as the specific comments
on the high latitude study but we have been working very closely with the Coast Guard.22
January 2011 DHS Office of Inspector General Report
A January 2011 report on the Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers from Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General stated:
The Coast Guard does not have the necessary budgetary control over its [polar] icebreakers,
nor does it have a sufficient number of icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the Polar
Regions. Currently, the Coast Guard has only one operational [polar] icebreaker [i.e., Healy],
making it necessary for the United States to contract with foreign nations to perform
scientific, logistical, and supply activities. Without the necessary budgetary control and a
sufficient number of icebreaking assets, the Coast Guard will not have the capability to
perform all of its missions, will lose critical icebreaking expertise, and may be beholden to
foreign nations to perform its statutory missions. The Coast Guard should improve its
strategic approach to ensure that it has the long-term icebreaker capabilities needed to
support Coast Guard missions and other national interests in the Arctic and Antarctic
regions.23
Regarding current polar icebreaking capabilities for performing Arctic missions, the report states:
The Coast Guard’s icebreaking resources are unlikely to meet future demands. [The table
below] outlines the missions that Coast Guard is unable to meet in the Arctic with its current
icebreaking resources.
22 Source: Transcript of hearing.
23 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 1 (Executive Summary). Report accessed September
21, 2011, at http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_11-31_Jan11.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Arctic Missions Not Being Met
Requesting Agency
Missions Not Being Met
United States Coast Guard
—Fisheries enforcement in Bering Sea to prevent
foreign fishing in U.S. waters and overfishing
—Capability to conduct search and rescue in Beaufort
Sea for cruise line and natural resource exploration
ships
—Future missions not anticipated to be met: 2010
Arctic Winter Science Deployment
NASA
Winter access to the Arctic to conduct oceanography
and study Arctic currents and how they relate to
regional ice cover, climate, and biology
NOAA and NSF
Winter research
Department of Defense
Assured access to ice-impacted waters through a
persistent icebreaker presence in the Arctic and
Antarctic24
The report also states:
Should the Coast Guard not obtain funding for new icebreakers or major service life
extensions for its existing icebreakers with sufficient lead-time, the United States will have
no heavy icebreaking capability beyond 2020 and no polar icebreaking capability of any kind
by 2029. Without the continued use of icebreakers, the United States will lose its ability to
maintain a presence in the Polar Regions, the Coast Guard’s expertise to perform ice
operations will continue to diminish, and missions will continue to go unmet.25
Regarding current polar icebreaking capabilities for performing Antarctic missions, the report
states:
The Coast Guard needs additional icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the Antarctic.
The Coast Guard has performed the McMurdo Station resupply in Antarctica for decades,
but with increasing difficulty in recent years. The Coast Guard’s two heavy-duty icebreakers
[i.e., Polar Star and Polar Sea] are at the end of their service lives, and have become less
reliable and increasingly costly to keep in service….
In recent years, the Coast Guard has found that ice conditions in the Antarctic have become
more challenging for the resupply of McMurdo Station. The extreme ice conditions have
necessitated the use of foreign vessels to perform the McMurdo break-in….
24 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 9.
25 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
13
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
As ice conditions continue to change around the Antarctic, two icebreakers are needed for
the McMurdo break-in and resupply mission. Typically, one icebreaker performs the break-
in and the other remains on standby. Should the first ship become stuck in the ice or should
the ice be too thick for one icebreaker to complete the mission, the Coast Guard deploys the
ship on standby. Since the Polar Sea and Polar Star are not currently in service, the Coast
Guard has no icebreakers capable of performing this mission. [The table below] outlines the
missions that will not be met without operational heavy-duty icebreakers.
Arctic Missions Not Being Met
Requesting Agency
Missions Not Being Met
NSF
Missions not anticipated to be met: 2010-2011
Operation Deep Freeze – McMurdo Station Resupply
Department of State
Additional inspections of foreign facilities in Antarctica
to enforce the Antarctic Treaty and ensure facilities’
environment compliance26
The report’s conclusion and recommendations were as follows:
Conclusion
With an aging fleet of three icebreakers, one operational and two beyond their intended 30-
year service life, the Coast Guard is at a critical crossroads in its Polar Icebreaker
Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program. It must clarify its mission requirements,
and if the current mission requirements remain, the Coast Guard must determine the best
method for meeting these requirements in the short and long term.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security, and
Stewardship:
Recommendation #1: Request budgetary authority for the operation, maintenance, and
upgrade of its icebreakers.
Recommendation #2: In coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, request
clarification from Congress to determine whether Arctic missions should be performed by
Coast Guard assets or contracted vessels.
Recommendation #3: In coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, request
clarification from Congress to determine whether Antarctic missions should be performed by
Coast Guard assets or contracted vessels.
Recommendation #4: Conduct the necessary analysis to determine whether the Coast Guard
should replace or perform service-life extensions on its two existing heavy-duty icebreaking
ships.
26 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, pp. 10-11.
Congressional Research Service
14
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Recommendation #5: Request appropriations necessary to meet mission requirements in the
Arctic and Antarctic.27
The report states that
The Coast Guard concurred with all five of the recommendations and is initiating corrective
actions. We consider the recommendations open and unresolved. The Coast Guard provided
information on some of its ongoing projects that will address the program needs identified in
the report.28
2010 U.S. Arctic Research Commission Report
A May 2010 report from the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) on goals and objectives
for Arctic research for 2009-2010 stated:
To have an effective Arctic research program, the United States must invest in human
capital, research platforms, and infrastructure, including new polar class icebreakers, and
sustained sea, air, land, space, and social observing systems…. The Commission urges the
President and Congress to commit to replacing the nation’s two polar class icebreakers.29
2007 National Research Council Report
A 2007 National Research Council (NRC) report, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An
Assessment of U.S. Needs, assessed roles and future needs for Coast Guard polar icebreakers.30
The study was required by report language accompanying the FY2005 DHS appropriations act
(H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334).31 The study was completed in 2006 and published in 2007. Some
27 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 12.
28 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 13.
29 U.S. Arctic Research Commission, Report on Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research 2009–2010, May 2010, p. 4.
Accessed online December 5, 2011, at http://www.arctic.gov/publications/usarc_2009-10_goals.pdf.
30 National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, 122 pp.
31 H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334 of October 18, 2004. The related Senate bill was S. 2537. The Senate report on S. 2537
(S.Rept. 108-280 of June 17, 2004) stated:
The Committee expects the Commandant to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy
of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the role of Coast Guard icebreakers in supporting
United States operations in the Antarctic and the Arctic. The study should include different
scenarios for continuing those operations including service life extension or replacement of existing
Coast Guard icebreakers and alternative methods that do not use Coast Guard icebreakers. The
study should also address changes in the roles and missions of Coast Guard icebreakers in support
of future marine operations in the Arctic that may develop due to environmental change, including
the amount and kind of icebreaking support that may be required in the future to support marine
operations in the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage; the suitability of the Polar Class
icebreakers for these new roles; and appropriate changes in existing laws governing Coast Guard
icebreaking operations and the potential for new operating regimes. The study should be submitted
to the Committee no later than September 30, 2005.
The conference report on H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-774 of October 9, 2004) stated:
As discussed in the Senate report and the Coast Guard authorization bill for fiscal year 2005, the
conferees require the National Academy of Sciences to study the role of Coast Guard icebreakers.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
sources refer to the study as the 2006 NRC report. The report made the following conclusions and
recommendations:
Based on the current and future needs for icebreaking capabilities, the [study] committee
concludes that the nation continues to require a polar icebreaking fleet that includes a
minimum of three multimission ships [like the Coast Guard’s three current polar icebreakers]
and one single-mission [research] ship [like Palmer]. The committee finds that although the
demand for icebreaking capability is predicted to increase, a fleet of three multimission and
one single-mission icebreakers can meet the nation’s future polar icebreaking needs through
the application of the latest technology, creative crewing models, wise management of ice
conditions, and more efficient use of the icebreaker fleet and other assets. The nation should
immediately begin to program, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers to replace
the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA.
Building only one new polar icebreaker is insufficient for several reasons. First, a single ship
cannot be in more than one location at a time. No matter how technologically advanced or
efficiently operated, a single polar icebreaker can operate in the polar regions for only a
portion of any year. An icebreaker requires regular maintenance and technical support from
shipyards and industrial facilities, must reprovision regularly, and has to effect periodic crew
changeouts. A single icebreaker, therefore, could not meet any reasonable standard of active
and influential presence and reliable, at-will access throughout the polar regions.
A second consideration is the potential risk of failure in the harsh conditions of polar
operations. Despite their intrinsic robustness, damage and system failure are always a risk
and the U.S. fleet must have enough depth to provide backup assistance. Having only a
single icebreaker would necessarily require the ship to accept a more conservative operating
profile, avoiding more challenging ice conditions because reliable assistance would not be
available. A second capable icebreaker, either operating elsewhere or in homeport, would
provide ensured backup assistance and allow for more robust operations by the other ship.
From a strategic, longer-term perspective, two new Polar class icebreakers will far better
position the nation for the increasing challenges emerging in both polar regions. A second
new ship would allow the U.S. Coast Guard to reestablish an active patrol presence in U.S.
waters north of Alaska to meet statutory responsibilities that will inevitably derive from
increased human activity, economic development, and environmental change. It would allow
response to emergencies such as search-and-rescue cases, pollution incidents, and assistance
to ships threatened with grounding or damage by ice. Moreover, a second new ship will
leverage the possibilities for simultaneous operations in widely disparate geographic areas
(e.g., concurrent operations in the Arctic and Antarctic), provide more flexibility for
conducting Antarctic logistics (as either the primary or the secondary ship for the McMurdo
break-in), allow safer multiple-ship operations in the most demanding ice conditions, and
increase opportunities for international expeditions. Finally, an up-front decision to build two
new polar icebreakers will allow economies in the design and construction process and
provide a predictable cost reduction for the second ship….
The [study] committee finds that both operations and maintenance of the polar icebreaker
fleet have been underfunded for many years, and the capabilities of the nation’s icebreaking
fleet have diminished substantially. Deferred long-term maintenance and failure to execute a
(...continued)
The earlier House report on H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-541 of June 15, 2004) contained language directing a similar
report from the Coast Guard rather than the National Academies. (See the passage in the House report under the header
“Icebreaking.”)
Congressional Research Service
16
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
plan for replacement or refurbishment of the nation’s icebreaking ships have placed national
interests in the polar regions at risk. The nation needs the capability to operate in both polar
regions reliably and at will. Specifically, the committee recommends the following:
• The United States should continue to project an active and influential presence in the
Arctic to support its interests. This requires U.S. government polar icebreaking
capability to ensure year-round access throughout the region.
• The United States should continue to project an active and influential presence in the
Antarctic to support its interests. The nation should reliably control sufficient
icebreaking capability to break a channel into and ensure the maritime resupply of
McMurdo Station.
• The United States should maintain leadership in polar research. This requires
icebreaking capability to provide access to the deep Arctic and the ice-covered waters of
the Antarctic.
• National interests in the polar regions require that the United States immediately
program, budget, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers to be operated by the
U.S. Coast Guard.
• To provide continuity of U.S. icebreaking capabilities, the POLAR SEA should remain
mission capable and the POLAR STAR should remain available for reactivation until
the new polar icebreakers enter service.
• The U.S. Coast Guard should be provided sufficient operations and maintenance budget
to support an increased, regular, and influential presence in the Arctic. Other agencies
should reimburse incremental costs associated with directed mission tasking.
• Polar icebreakers are essential instruments of U.S. national policy in the changing polar
regions. To ensure adequate national icebreaking capability into the future, a
Presidential Decision Directive should be issued to clearly align agency responsibilities
and budgetary authorities.32
The Coast Guard stated in 2008 that it “generally supports” the NRC report, and that the Coast
Guard “is working closely with interagency partners to determine a way forward with national
polar policy that identifies broad U.S. interests and priorities in the Arctic and Antarctic that will
ensure adequate maritime presence to further these interests. Identification and prioritization of
U.S. national interests in these regions should drive development of associated USCG [U.S. Coast
Guard] capability and resource requirements.” The Coast Guard also stated: “Until those broad
U.S. interests and priorities are identified, the current USG [U.S. Government] polar icebreaking
fleet should be maintained in an operational status.”33
32 National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, pp. 2-3.
33 Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS on February 12, 2008, and dated with the same date, providing answers to
questions from CRS concerning polar icebreaker modernization.
Congressional Research Service
17
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Cost Estimates for Certain Modernization Options
New Replacement Ships
The Coast Guard estimated in February 2008 that new replacement ships for the Polar Star and
Polar Sea might cost between $800 million and $925 million per ship in 2008 dollars to
procure.34 The Coast Guard said that this estimate
is based on a ship with integrated electric drive, three propellers, and a combined diesel and
gas (electric) propulsion plant. The icebreaking capability would be equivalent to the
POLAR Class Icebreakers [i.e., Polar Star and Polar Sea] and research facilities and
accommodations equivalent to HEALY. This cost includes all shipyard and government
project costs. Total time to procure a new icebreaker [including mission analysis, studies,
design, contract award, and construction] is eight to ten years.35
The Coast Guard further stated that this notional new ship would be designed for a 30-year
service life.
The High Latitude Study provided to Congress in July 2011 states that the above figure of $800
million to $925 million in 2008 dollars equates to $900 million to $1,041 million in 2012 dollars.
The study provides the following estimates, in 2012 dollars, of the acquisition costs for new polar
icebreakers:
• $856 million for 1 ship;
• $1,663 million for 2 ships—an average of about $832 million each;
• $2,439 million for 3 ships—an average of $813 million each;
• $3,207 million for 4 ships—an average of about $802 million each;
• $3,961 million for 5 ships—an average of about $792 million each; and
• $4,704 million for 6 ships—an average of $784 million each.
The study refers to the above estimates as “rough order-of-magnitude costs” that “were developed
as part of the Coast Guard’s independent Polar Platform Business Case Analysis.”36
34 Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS on February 12, 2008, and dated with the same date, providing answers to
questions from CRS concerning polar icebreaker modernization.
35 The Coast Guard states further that the estimate is based on the procurement cost of the Mackinaw (WAGB-30), a
Great Lakes icebreaker that was procured a few years ago and commissioned into service with the Coast Guard in June
2006. The Mackinaw is 240 feet long, displaces 3,500 tons, and can break ice up to 2 feet, 8 inches thick at speeds of 3
knots, which is suitable for Great Lakes icebreaking. The Coast Guard says it scaled up the procurement cost for the
Mackinaw in proportion to its size compared to that of a polar icebreaker, and then adjusted the resulting figure to
account for the above-described capabilities of the notional replacement ship and recent construction costs at U.S. Gulf
Coast shipyards.
36 United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, p. 13.
Congressional Research Service
18
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
25-Year Service Life Extensions
The Coast Guard stated in February 2008 that performing the extensive maintenance, repair, and
modernization work needed to extend the service lives of the 2 ships by 25 years might cost
roughly $400 million per ship. This figure, the Coast Guard said, is based on assessments made
by independent contractors for the Coast Guard in 2004. The service life extension work, the
Coast Guard said, would improve the two icebreakers’ installed systems in certain areas.
Although the work would be intended to permit the ships to operate for another 25 years, it would
not return the cutters to new condition.37
An August 30, 2010, press report stated that the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert
Papp, estimated the cost of extending the lives of Polar Star and Polar Sea at about $500 million
per ship; the article quoted Papp as stating that Polar Star and Polar Sea “were built to take a
beating. They were built with very thick special steel, so you might be able to do a renovation on
them and keep going…. I think there are certain types of steel that, if properly maintained, they
can go on for an awful long time. What the limit is, I’m not sure.”38
Reactivate Polar Sea for Several Years
At a June 26, 2013, hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Vice Admiral John P. Currier, the Vice
Commandant of the Coast Guard, testified that repairing and reactivating Polar Sea for an
additional 7 to 10 years of service would require about 3 years of repair work at a cost of about
$100 million.39
Funding for New Polar Icebreaker
FY2013 Budget Submission
The Coast Guard’s FY2013 budget initiated a new project for the design and construction of a
new polar icebreaker. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2013 budget requested $8 million in
FY2013 acquisition funding to initiate survey and design activities for the ship, and projected an
additional $852 million in FY2013-FY2017 for acquiring the ship. The Coast Guard’s FY2013
budget anticipated awarding a construction contract for the ship “within the next five years” and
taking delivery on the ship “within a decade.”
FY2014 Budget Submission
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget requested $2 million in acquisition funding to
continue survey and design activities for the ship, or $118 million less than the $120 million that
was projected for FY2014 under the FY2013 budget. The Coast Guard’s FY2014 budget
37 Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS on February 12, 2008, and dated with the same date, providing answers to
questions from CRS concerning polar icebreaker modernization.
38 Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010. Ellipsis as in original.
39 Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
19
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
submission projects an additional $228 million in FY2015-FY2018 for acquiring the ship,
including $128 million in FY2015-FY2017, or $604 million less than the $732 million that was
projected for FY2015-FY2017 under the Coast Guard’s FY2013 budget submission. The Coast
Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget anticipates awarding a construction contract for the ship
“within the next four years.” The Coast Guard states that the requested FY2014 funding
will be used to continue development of programmatic planning documents required under
the USCG Major Systems Acquisition Manual, including an Analysis of Alternatives, a Life
Cycle Cost Estimate, modeling simulation and testing (as required) to build a modern polar
icebreaker. Together with funding provided in 2013, Coast Guard will complete the Mission
Needs Statement, the Concept of Operations, and the Preliminary Operational Requirements
Document. These efforts will lead to development of a formal icebreaker acquisition project,
with the award for construction anticipated within the next four years.40
FY2013 and FY2014 Five Year Capital Investment Plans (CIPs) Compared
Table 3 compares funding for the acquisition of a new polar icebreaker under the Coast Guard’s
FY2013 and FY2014 Five Year Capital Investment Plans (CIPs). As shown in Table 3, the Coast
Guard is proposing to fund the acquisition of this ship using incremental funding (i.e., through a
series of annual funding increments).
Table 3. Funding for Acquisition of New Polar Icebreaker Under FY2013 and FY2014
Five Year Capital Investment Plans
(millions of then-year dollars)
5-year
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 total
FY2013
8 120 380 270 82 860
CIP
(FY2013-
FY2017)
FY2014
2 8 100 20 100 230
CIP
(FY2014-
FY2018)
FY2014 CIP compared to FY2013 CIP (common years)
Annual
-118
-372
-170 -62
difference
Cumulative
-118 -490 -660 -722
difference
Source: Coast Guard FY2013 and FY2014 Five Year Capital Investment Plans (CIPs).
Recent Acquisition Steps
A February 4, 2013, press report stated, “The Coast Guard last week issued a Request for
Information (RFI) to conduct market research for candidate heavy polar icebreaker designs and
shipyards in the United States capable of building a heavy polar icebreaker. The RFI is a first step
40 Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Justification, p. CG-
AC&I-32 (pdf page 204 of 403).
Congressional Research Service
20
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
toward a possible polar non-nuclear icebreaker procurement program to help the Coast Guard
develop an acquisition strategy for such a vessel.”41
A February 28, 2013, Coast Guard news release stated:
Long before any drawings are made or steel cut in the shipyard, the Coast Guard has taken a
deliberative approach to defining its mission needs [for a new heavy polar icebreaker]. To
drive the beginning stages of the acquisition project, the Coast Guard has assembled a 42-
member integrated project team (IPT) composed of experts from 28 different Coast Guard
offices as well as representatives from eight other government agencies, including the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of State.
The project has relied on a small subset of IPT members from the Office of Cutter Forces,
Office of Requirements and Analysis, Office of Waterways and Ocean Policy, and the
Acquisition Directorate to draft preliminary documents that will direct activities under any
future acquisition project.
The IPT built off the mission gaps identified in the Mission Analysis Report and has now
completed the Mission Needs Statement, which defines what is needed to address those gaps.
Lt. Cmdr. Greg Daughtry, chief requirements officer in the Office of Requirements and
Analysis, said the team has now begun work to develop the Concept of Operations
(CONOPS).
“The CONOPS will describe how the organization plans to utilize and maintain capability. It
will describe how and where we intend to operate from a multi-mission standpoint, including
defense readiness, search and rescue, law enforcement and scientific purposes,” Daughtry
said.
Recent International Collaboration
On Feb. 7, 2013, members of the Canadian Coast Guard’s polar icebreaking program visited
Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, D.C., to meet with their counterparts in the
Service’s acquisition community and discuss mutual interests. During the meeting,
representatives signed an annex to a 2009 U.S.–Canadian shipbuilding memorandum of
understanding, codifying ongoing cooperation between the two nations’ efforts to obtain a
polar icebreaker.
The Canadians announced their polar icebreaker acquisition project in 2008 and have
completed the preliminary design phase as well as ice tank trials with three different models.
In the next few months, they will choose a model to move forward into detailed design and
construction. During the week of Feb. 18th, 2013, IPT members traveled to Vancouver to
observe the design selection process, said Cmdr. Tim Newton, the Acquisition Directorate’s
heavy polar icebreaker assistant project manager.
“We were able to see some of the challenges they’re having with setting up a single-ship
program—something they haven’t done in many years. We were able to look at some of the
issues they’ve dealt with and hopefully avoid some of those same problems,” Newton said.
The Coast Guard has also reached out to the Finnish government for assistance. Finland has
a wealth of icebreaking expertise, as 80 percent of their trade comes in through the icy Baltic
Sea. The Finns have provided information on the state of today’s icebreaker market.
41 “Wanted: Icebreaker Designs,” Defense Daily, February 4, 2013: 3.
Congressional Research Service
21
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Icebreaker Experience and Lessons Learned
At the core of the IPT is Lt. Cmdr. Kristen Serumgard, polar icebreaker platform manager in
the Office of Cutter Forces and sponsor’s representative for the heavy polar icebreaker
project. Serumgard is approaching her 13th year of active duty with the Coast Guard, a third
of which was served on icebreaking cutters.
On her first tour of duty, she served as deck watch officer aboard the 399-foot heavy polar
icebreaker Coast Guard Cutter Polar Sea (WAGB 11), including two patrols to Antarctica as
part of Operation Deep Freeze, an annual mission supporting the NSF to resupply McMurdo
Station. She also served two years aboard Coast Guard Cutter Hollyhock (WLB 214), an ice-
capable 225-foot Juniper-class Seagoing Buoy Tender homeported in Port Huron, Mich.
Serumgard’s icebreaking experience is a tremendous benefit at this point in the acquisition
project lifecycle. “Much of the subject matter experts’ experience is in temperate waters,”
she said. “So an understanding of polar conditions is very important and vital to the
requirements gathering process.”
In addition, her close relationship with the Coast Guard’s icebreaker community is a direct
line to their input and expertise. The Service’s icebreaker fleet is small, and those who serve
aboard these vessels consider themselves very much a family.
“We have a very small group of operators and engineers who have actually served on these
vessels and understand how they operate, what events are going on, and what needs to
happen,” Serumgard said.
The IPT is also leveraging the Service’s past experience by looking at lessons learned from
two previous icebreaker acquisitions: Coast Guard Cutter Healy (WAGB 20), a 420-foot
medium polar icebreaker that was commissioned in 1999 and now is the United States’
newest and most technologically advanced polar icebreaker, and Coast Guard Cutter
Mackinaw (WLBB 30), a 240-foot Great Lakes icebreaker commissioned in 2006.
Even though the acquisition strategy and construction process for a single hull is different
than a cutter fleet, the team is also looking at how best practices and lessons learned from the
Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter, Offshore Patrol Cutter, and Fast Response Cutter
acquisitions could apply to the heavy polar icebreaker program.42
December 1, 2011, Hearing
On December 1, 2011, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing entitled “Protecting U.S.
Sovereignty: Coast Guard Operations in the Arctic.” The primary (though not only) topic
discussed at the hearing was the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet. Witnesses included the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, the lieutenant governor of Alaska, a director from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), a deputy director from the NSF, the chief operating
officer of a shipyard that has conducted maintenance and repair work on Polar Sea and Polar Star
for many years, and a retired Coast Guard admiral who spent much of his career on Coast Guard
42 Coast Guard news release, “Coast Guard Heavy Polar Icebreaker Project Taking Shape,” February 28, 2013,
accessed March 26, 2013, at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg9/newsroom/updates/icebreaker022813.asp.
Congressional Research Service
22
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
polar icebreakers. The prepared statements of the witnesses and the subcommittee’s background
memorandum for the hearing are available from the committee’s website.43
Issues for Congress
Impact of March 1, 2013, Sequester on FY2013 Funding
One issue for Congress concerns the impact on the project for a new polar icebreaker of the
March 1, 2013, sequester on FY2013 funding, particularly in terms of the Coast Guard’s ability to
complete the survey and design activities for a new polar icebreaker that were planned for
FY2013.
Amount of Acquisition Funding Requested for FY2014 and
Projected for FY2015-FY2018
Another potential issue for Congress concerns the sufficiency of the acquisition funding requested
for FY2014 and projected for FY2015-FY2018 for the project for a new polar icebreaker. As
noted earlier, the $2 million requested for FY2014 is $118 million less than the $120 million that
was projected for FY2014 under the Coast Guard’s FY2013 budget submission, and the $128
million projected for FY2015-FY2017 is $604 million less than the $732 million that was
projected for FY2015-FY2017 under the Coast Guard’s FY2013 budget submission. Potential
oversight questions include the following:
• Why was FY2014 funding for a new polar icebreaker reduced from a projected
$120 million under the FY2013 budget submission to an actual request for $2
million under the FY2014 budget?
• What activities in support of a new polar icebreaker that were projected for
FY2014 under the FY2013 budget are no longer planned for FY2014 under the
FY2014 budget?
• What impact will the reduction in requested and projected acquisition funding
under the FY2014 CIP compared to the FY2013 CIP (see Table 3) have on the
schedule for designing and building the ship? How much additional schedule risk
is there under the FY2014 CIP?
The Coast Guard states that the reduction in funding for the program in the FY2014 CIP
compared to the FY2013 CIP does not materially change the schedule for acquiring the ship, for
two reasons. First, the Coast Guard states that the prohibition on new program starts that was in
place under the continuing resolution (CR) that funded government operations from October 1,
2012, until March 26, 2013 (H.J.Res. 117/P.L. 112-175 of September 28, 2012) will prevent the
Coast Guard from fully using the $8 million in FY2013 funding that was provided for the
program, permitting the unused portion to be carried over into FY2014. This carried-over
funding, combined with the $2 million requested for FY2014, will be enough, the Coast Guard
43 As of December 5, 2011, the materials were posted online at http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/
hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1458.
Congressional Research Service
23
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
states, to fund FY2014 activities for the program. Second, and more generally, the Coast Guard
states that, compared to last year, the Coast Guard now has a more fully developed understanding
of the schedule for the polar icebreaker project, and that much of the funding for the ship that was
included in the FY2013 CIP can now be viewed in retrospect as having been put into the plan
ahead of need.44
At an April 16, 2013, hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee
of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Admiral Robert Papp, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, when asked about the situation, testified that
The fact of the matter is we try [sic: tried] to exercise some good stewardship as we were
going through the protracted, continuing resolution and were not able to execute on a new
project. Of course we are [sic: were] half way into the year by the time we got an approved
budget.
So [we are] looking at carrying over some of that [$]8 million in the ‘13 budget into ‘14 and
combined with the [$]2 million [this] allows us to continue our work, I don't think it will
result in much of a setback but we are firmly committed to getting this new ice breaker built
... [A]s we go into the out-years there will be sequential funding to take us through probably
a 10-year period until we have that new ice breaker produced.45
Similarly, at an April 23, 2013, hearing before the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast
Guard subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Admiral
Papp testified that
I realize it causes some concern when people look at $2 million in the ‘14 budget. That’s
simply because the ‘13 budget was enacted halfway through the year. We haven't had a
chance to spend any of that money because [under the continuing resolution] we didn't have
it [i.e., the authority for new starts], so as a good steward we said we can extend some of that
money into the FY ‘14 spending, along with the $2 million, to keep this process going.46
Number and Capabilities of Future Polar Icebreakers
Factors to Consider
Another potential issue for Congress is how many polar icebreakers, with what capabilities, the
Coast Guard will need in the future. In assessing this issue, factors that Congress may consider
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• current and projected mission demands for Coast Guard polar icebreakers as
analyzed in the High Latitude Study and other recent studies, including an
assessment of how those demands might be affected by NSF decisions on how to
acquire icebreaking services to support its research activities;
• the potential for various mission demands (not just those conducted in support of
NSF research activities) to be met by non-Coast Guard icebreakers, including
44 Source: Coast Guard briefing to CRS, June 14, 2013.
45 Transcript of hearing.
46 Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
24
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
leases or charters of icebreakers owned by foreign governments or private firms;
and
• the Coast Guard’s overall missions-vs.-resources situation, which includes the
Coast Guard’s requirements to perform many non-polar missions and the Coast
Guard’s desire to fund programs for performing these non-polar missions.47
Regarding the first factor above, the NSF states that although Coast Guard polar icebreakers are
very capable, the NSF is mandated by presidential directive to perform its research activities in
the most cost-effective way possible, and that it can be more expensive for NSF to support its
research activities with Coast Guard polar icebreakers than with charters of icebreakers crewed
by contractor personnel. Although Coast Guard polar icebreakers in the past have performed the
annual McMurdo break-in mission, the NSF in recent years has chartered Russian and Swedish
contractor-operated icebreakers to perform the mission (with a Coast Guard polar icebreaker
standing ready to assist if needed). The NSF has also noted that Healy, though very capable in
supporting Arctic research, operates at sea for about 200 days a year, as opposed to about 300
days a year for foreign contractor-operated polar icebreakers.
Regarding the second factor above, issues to consider would include, among other things, the
potential availability of ships for lease, leasing costs, regulatory issues relating to long-term
leases of capital assets for the U.S. government, and the ability of leased ships to perform the
missions in question, including the mission of defending U.S. sovereignty in Arctic waters north
of Alaska, the challenging McMurdo resupply mission, or missions that emerge suddenly in
response to unexpected events.48
Regarding the first two factors above, some observers note the size of the polar icebreaking fleets
operated by other countries. Countries with interests in the polar regions have differing
requirements for polar icebreakers, depending on the nature and extent of their polar activities.
Table 4 shows a Coast Guard summary of major icebreakers around the world.
47 For more on some of these other programs, see CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition
Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
48 The potential for using leased ships, and the possible limitations of this option, are discussed at several points in the
2007 NRC report. The report argues, among other things, that the availability of icebreakers for lease in coming years
is open to question, that leased ships are not optimal for performing sovereignty-related operations, and that some
foreign icebreakers might be capable of performing the McMurdo resupply mission. See, for example, pages 80-81 of
the NRC report. See also Jennifer Scholtes, “In Search of Frozen Assets,” CQ Weekly, October 10, 2011: 2074.
Congressional Research Service
25
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 4. Major Icebreakers Around the World
(as of September 10, 2012)
Total all
In inventory, government owned or
In inventory, privately owned and
types, in
operated
operated
inventory (+
under
10,000 to
20,000 to
45,000 or
10,000 to 20,000 to
45,000
construction
19,999
44,999
more
19,999
44,999
or more
+ planned)
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
Russia
34 (+ 4 + 9)
5
6
6 (al
8 9
nuclear
powered; 5
operational)
Sweden 7
4
3
Finland 8 2 3 3
Canada
6 (+0 +1)
4 (3
2
operational)
United
5 (+0 +1)
1 (Healy) 2
(Polar Sea
1 (Palmer)
1 (Aiviq –
States
and Polar
built for
Star –
Shell Oil))
neither
operational)
Denmark 4
4
Norway
1 (+0 +1)
1
China
1 (+0 +1)
1
Argentina 1
1
(not
operational)
Australia 1
1
Chile 1 1
Estonia 1
1
Germany
1 (+0 +1)
1
Japan 1 1
South
1 1
Korea
South
1 1
Africa
Latvia 1 1
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Coast Guard chart showing data compiled by the Coast Guard as
of September 10, 2012, accessed online October 26, 2012, at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg552/ice.asp.
Notes: Includes some icebreakers designed for use in the Baltic Sea. BHP = the brake horsepower of the ship’s
power plant. A ship with 45,000 or more BHP might be considered a heavy polar icebreaker; a ship with 20,000
to 44,999 BHP might be considered a medium polar icebreaker, and a ship with 10,000 to 19,999 BHP might be
considered a light polar icebreaker or an ice-capable polar ship.
Congressional Research Service
26
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Notional Arguments for Various Numbers
Advocates of a Coast Guard polar icebreaker fleet that includes two ships—Healy plus one heavy
polar icebreaker—might argue that the Coast Guard operated with such a force between July 1,
2006 (when Polar Star went into caretaker status) until June 2010 (when Polar Sea suffered an
engine casualty and was removed from service), that the Coast Guard, following the reactivation
of Polar Sea on December 14, 2012, is once again operating with such a force, and that a force
with Healy plus one heavy polar icebreaker would cost less than a larger polar icebreaker fleet
and thereby permit the Coast Guard to better fund programs for performing its various non-polar
missions.
Advocates of a Coast Guard fleet that includes three ships—Healy plus two heavy polar
icebreakers—might argue that the 2007 NRC report recommended a polar icebreaking fleet of
three multimission polar icebreakers (i.e., Healy plus two additional polar icebreakers), that the
Coast Guard operated with such a force from 2000, when Healy entered service, until July 1,
2006, when Polar Star went into caretaker status, that the 2006-2010 force of Healy and one
heavy polar icebreaker made it more difficult for the Coast Guard to perform the McMurdo
resupply mission using its own assets, that a force that includes two heavy polar icebreakers
rather than one would provide more flexibility for responding to polar contingencies or dealing
with mechanical problems on a heavy polar icebreaker, and that such a force would still be
sufficiently affordable to permit the Coast Guard to adequately fund programs for performing
non-polar missions.
Advocates of a Coast Guard fleet that includes Healy plus three heavy polar icebreakers might
argue that the High Latitude Study found that the Coast Guard requires three heavy (and three
medium) icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions, that a force with three heavy polar
icebreakers would provide additional capability for responding to potentially increased
commercial and military activities in the Arctic, that it would more strongly signal U.S.
commitment to defending its sovereignty and other interests in the region, and that while such a
force would be more expensive than a smaller polar icebreaker fleet, the added investment would
be justified in light of the growing focus on U.S. polar interests.
Disposition of Polar Sea
Another potential issue for Congress concerns the disposition of Polar Sea. Section 222 of the
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 2838/P.L. 112-213 of December
20, 2012) prohibits the Coast Guard from removing any part of Polar Sea and from transferring,
relinquishing ownership of, dismantling, or recycling the ship until it submits a business case
analysis of the options for and costs of reactivating the ship and extending its service life to at
least September 30, 2022, so as to maintain U.S. polar icebreaking capabilities and fulfill the
Coast Guard’s high latitude mission needs, as identified in the Coast Guard’s July 2010, High
Latitude Study Mission Analysis Report. Options for the disposition of the ship include the
following, among others:
• repairing and reactivating the ship;
• keeping the ship in preservation status in the Maritime Administration’s
(MARAD’s) National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) for potential reactivation
to meet increased polar icebreaking needs or to replace Polar Star, should that
ship be removed from service before the end of its anticipated 7- to 10-year post-
Congressional Research Service
27
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
reactivation service life due to an accident or the failure of critical equipment that
cannot be cost-effectively repaired;
• selling or transferring the ship to another government or to a private owner; and
• dismantling the ship and recycling its scrap metal.
Incremental Funding vs. Full Funding
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the Coast Guard’s proposal to fund the
acquisition of a new icebreaker using incremental funding (i.e., a series of annual funding
increments—see “Funding for New Polar Icebreaker” in “Background”) rather than full funding
(i.e., placing most or all of the ship’s acquisition cost into a single year). Section 31.6 of Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-1149 normally requires executive branch agencies to
use full funding for acquiring capital assets such as a new ship. The Coast Guard appears to have
received permission from OMB to propose the use of incremental funding for acquiring a new
polar icebreaker; Congress may choose to approve, reject, or modify this proposal.
Supporters of using incremental funding to acquire a new polar icebreaker could argue that
funding this ship in a single year would create a one-year “spike” in Coast Guard funding
requirements that could require offsetting and potentially disruptive one-year reductions in other
Coast Guard programs, and that using incremental funding mitigates the spiking issue by
spreading the ship’s cost over several years. Supporters could argue that avoiding such budget
spikes is a principal reason why the Navy in recent years has been given permission by OMB and
Congress to use incremental funding to procure aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships,50
and that a polar icebreaker is analogous to an aircraft carrier or an amphibious assault ship in
being a very expensive (for the Coast Guard) ship that is procured once every several years.
Supporters of using full funding to acquire a new polar icebreaker could argue that the acquisition
cost of a polar icebreaker (roughly $900 million), though large by Coast Guard standards, is much
less than that of an aircraft carrier (more than $11 billion) or an amphibious assault ship (more
than $3 billion). They could argue that OMB believes using full funding reduces risks in the
acquisition of capital assets,51 and that permitting the use of incremental funding for the
49 The text of OMB Circular A-11 is available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
circulars_a11_current_year_a11_toc.
50 See. for example, CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
51 Appendix J to OMB Circular A-11 states, in explaining the requirement for using full funding, that
Good budgeting requires that appropriations for the full costs of asset acquisition be enacted in
advance to help ensure that all costs and benefits are fully taken into account at the time decisions
are made to provide resources. Full funding with regular appropriations in the budget year also
leads to tradeoffs within the budget year with spending for other capital assets and with spending
for purposes other than capital assets. Full funding increases the opportunity to use performance-
based fixed price contracts, allows for more efficient work planning and management of the capital
project (or investment), and increases the accountability for the achievement of the baseline goals.
When full funding is not followed and capital projects (or investments) or useful segments are
funded in increments, without certainty if or when future funding will be available, the result is
sometimes poor planning, acquisition of assets not fully justified, higher acquisition costs,
cancellation of major investments, the loss of sunk costs, or inadequate funding to maintain and
operate the assets.
Congressional Research Service
28
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
procurement of a polar icebreaker could weaken adherence to the policy by setting a precedent
for using incremental funding for acquiring other capital assets costing less than $1 billion.
The issue of incremental funding as an alternative to full funding in the acquisition of Navy ships
is discussed at length in other CRS reports.52
Funding Ships in Coast Guard Budget or Elsewhere
Another potential issue for Congress, if it is determined that one or more new icebreakers should
be procured by the government through a traditional acquisition, is whether the acquisition cost of
those ships should be funded entirely through Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements (AC&I) account, or partly or entirely through other parts of the federal budget,
such as the Department of Defense (DOD) budget, the NSF budget, or both.53 Within the DOD
budget, possibilities include the Navy’s shipbuilding account, called the Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy (SCN) account, and the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF), which is an
account where DOD sealift ships and Navy auxiliary ships are funded.
There is precedent for funding Coast Guard icebreakers in the DOD budget: The procurement of
Healy was funded in FY1990 in the DOD budget—specifically, the SCN account.54 Advocates of
funding new icebreakers partly or entirely through the SCN account or the NDSF might argue
that this could permit the funding of new icebreakers while putting less pressure on other parts of
the Coast Guard’s budget. They might also argue that it would permit the new icebreaker program
to benefit from the Navy’s experience in managing shipbuilding programs. Opponents might
argue that funding new icebreakers in the SCN account or the NDSF might put pressure on these
other two accounts at a time when the Navy and DOD are facing challenges funding their own
shipbuilding and other priorities. They might also argue that having the Navy manage the Coast
Guard’s icebreaker program would add complexity to the acquisition effort, and that it is unclear
whether the Navy’s recent performance in managing shipbuilding programs is better than the
Coast Guard’s, since both services have recently experienced problems in managing shipbuilding
programs—the Coast Guard with the procurement of new Deepwater cutters, and the Navy in the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and the LPD-17 class amphibious ship program.55
52 See CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background, Issues, and Options for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett, and CRS Report RL32776, Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative
Funding Approaches—Background and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
53 For more on the NSF, whose budget is normally funded through the annual Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill, see CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview, by Christine
M. Matthews.
54 The FY1990 DOD appropriations act (H.R. 3072/P.L. 101-165 of November 21, 1989) provided $329 million for the
procurement of Healy in the SCN account. (See pages 77 and 78 of H.Rept. 101-345 of November 13, 1989). The
NDSF was created three years later, in FY1993, as a fund for procuring DOD sealift ships, among other purposes, and
since FY2001 has been used to fund Navy auxiliary ships as well.
55 For more on Deepwater acquisition programs and the LCS and LPD-17 programs, see CRS Report RL33753, Coast
Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald
O’Rourke; CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress,
by Ronald O'Rourke; and CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background, Issues,
and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
29
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
The prepared statement of the GAO witness at the December 1, 2011, hearing states:
Another alternative option addressed by the Recapitalization report would be to fund new
icebreakers through the NSF. However, the analysis of this option concluded that funding a
new icebreaker through the existing NSF budget would have significant adverse impacts on
NSF operations and that the capability needed for Coast Guard requirements would exceed
that needed by the NSF.
The Recapitalization report noted that a funding approach similar to the approach used for
the Healy, which was funded through the fiscal year 1990 DOD appropriations, should be
considered. However, the report did not analyze the feasibility of this option. We have
previously reported that because of the Coast Guard’s statutory role as both a federal
maritime agency and a branch of the military, it can receive funding through both the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOD. For example, as we previously
reported, although the U.S. Navy is not expressly required to provide funding to the Coast
Guard, the Coast Guard receives funding from the Navy to purchase and maintain
equipment, such as self-defense systems or communication systems, because it is in the
Navy’s interest for the Coast Guard systems to be compatible with the Navy’s systems when
the Coast Guard is performing national defense missions in support of the Navy. However,
according to a Coast Guard budget official, the Coast Guard receives the majority of its
funding through the DHS appropriation, with the exception of reimbursements for specific
activities. Also, as the Recapitalization plan acknowledges, there is considerable strain on the
DOD budget. A recent DOD report on the Arctic also notes budgetary challenges, stating
that the near-term fiscal and political environment will make it difficult to support significant
new U.S. investments in the Arctic. Furthermore, DOD and the Coast Guard face different
mission requirements and timelines. For example, DOD’s recent report states that the current
level of human activity in the Arctic is already of concern to DHS, whereas the Arctic is
expected to remain a peripheral interest to much of the national security community for the
next decade or more. As a result, the Coast Guard has a more immediate need than DOD to
acquire Arctic capabilities, such as icebreakers. For example, with preliminary plans for
drilling activity approved in 2011, the Coast Guard must be prepared to provide
environmental response in the event of an oil spill. Similarly, as cruise ship traffic continues
to increase, the Coast Guard must be prepared to conduct search and rescue operations
should an incident occur. For these reasons, it is unlikely that an approach similar to the one
that was used to build the Healy would be feasible at this time.56
At a March 6, 2012, hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY2013 budget before the Homeland
Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Admiral Robert Papp, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, stated:
But [would] I like to make a case, and this is just Papp’s opinion[,] that an icebreaker ought
to be a shared cost across the government. The National Science Foundation needs it, the
Department of Defense from time to time needs it. Yes, the Coast Guard needs it. But this is
something that really begs for an across-government response, and I would say sharing as
well.57
56 Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observations on Arctic Requirements, Icebreakers, and
Coordination with Stakeholders, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell,
Director, Homeland Security and Justice, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, pp. 24-25.
57 Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
30
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
The Coast Guard states on its Internet page for the polar icebreaker program that
In order to fully fund subsequent phases of this project, the Coast Guard believes that a
“whole-of-government” approach will be necessary. Obtaining a new, heavy polar icebreaker
that meets Coast Guard requirements will depend upon supplementary financing from other
agencies whose activities also rely upon the nation possessing a robust, Arctic-capable
surface fleet.58
New Construction vs. Service Life Extension
Another potential issue for Congress is whether requirements for polar icebreakers over the next
25 to 30 years should be met by building new ships, by extending the service lives of existing
polar icebreakers, or by pursuing some combination of these options. In assessing this question,
factors to consider include the relative costs of these options, the capabilities that each option
would provide, the long-term supportability of older ships whose service lives have been
extended, and industrial-base impacts.
Regarding relative costs, as discussed in the “Background” section, the Coast Guard estimates
that new icebreakers with a 30-year design life might cost $800 million to $925 million per ship
in 2008 dollars, while a 25-year service life extension of Polar Star and Polar Sea might cost
about $400 million per ship in 2008 dollars. (As mentioned earlier, an August 30, 2010, press
report stated that the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, estimated the cost
of extending the lives of Polar Star and Polar Sea at about $500 million per ship.)59 These
estimates, however, should be compared with caution: the estimate for building new ships
depends in part on the capabilities that were assumed for those ships, and estimates for service-
life extension work can be very uncertain due to the potential for discovering new things about a
ship’s condition once the ship is opened up for service-life-extension work.
Regarding capabilities provided by each option, the new-construction option would provide
entirely new ships with extensive use of new technology, while the service-life-extension option
would provide ships that, although modernized and reconditioned, would not be entirely new and
would likely make less extensive use of new technologies. Among other things, new-construction
ships might be able to make more extensive use of new technologies for reducing crew size,
which is a significant factor in a ship’s life cycle operating and support costs.
Regarding long-term supportability of older ships, the Coast Guard has expressed concern about
the ability to support ships whose service lives have been extended after FY2014, because some
contracts that currently provide that support are scheduled to end that year.60
Regarding potential impact on the industrial base, 25-year service life extensions would likely
provide shipyards and supplier firms with less work, and also exercise a smaller set of shipyard
construction skills, than would building new ships.
58 Coast Guard Internet page entitled “Icebreaker,” last modified on June 28, 2013, and accessed July 3, 2013, at
http://www.uscg.mil/ACQUISITION/icebreaker/default.asp. See also Yasmin Tadjdeh, “Pressure Builds for New Polar
Icebreaker,” National Defense (www.nationaldefensemagazine.org), February 2014.
59 Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010. Ellipsis as in original.
60 CRS discussion with Coast Guard officials, January 30, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
31
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Procurement vs. Leasing
Another potential issue for Congress is whether future polar icebreakers should be acquired
through a traditional acquisition (i.e., the government procuring the ship and owning it throughout
its service life) or through a leasing arrangement (under which the icebreakers would be privately
built and privately owned, leased to the Coast Guard, and crewed by an all-Coast Guard crew or a
mix of Coast Guard personnel and civilian mariners). Factors to consider in assessing this issue
include the comparative costs of the two options and the potential differences between them in
terms of factors such as average number of days of operation each year and capability for
performing various missions. Comparing the potential costs of leasing versus purchasing a capital
asset often involves, among other things, calculating the net present value of each option.
At a December 1, 2011, hearing that focused on the polar icebreaker fleet (see “December 1,
2011, Hearing” in “Background”), Admiral Robert Papp, the Commandant of the Coast Guard,
stated:
As far as we can determine, there are no icebreakers available—no heavy icebreakers
available for leasing right now. They would have to be constructed [and then leased].
If we were to lease an icebreaker, I’m sure that a company building an icebreaker outside of
the government does not have to contend with the same federal acquisition rules that we have
to if we were to construct an icebreaker. It could probably be done quicker.
Personally, I’m ambivalent in terms of how we get an icebreaker for the Coast Guard. We’ve
done the legal research. If we lease an icebreaker, we can put a Coast Guard crew on it and
still have it as a U.S. vessel supporting U.S. sovereignty.
But the—but they aren’t available right now. And the other challenge that we face is the
federal acquisition rules and [Office of Management and Budget Circular] A-11
requirements that [direct how to] score the money [in the budget] for leasing. We’d have to
put up a significant amount of upfront money even with a lease that we don’t have room for
within our budget currently.61
At another point in the hearing, Admiral Papp stated:
We have looked at various business case scenarios, each and every time looking at, once
again, from our normal perspective, the Coast Guard perspective, which has been owning
ships forever. And generally, we keep ships 30-40 years or beyond. There is a point where
leasing becomes more expensive, it’s at or about the 20-25-year timeline.
I just don’t have the experience with leasing to be able to give you a good opinion on it. And
once again, I'm ambivalent. We just need the icebreaking capability, I think it’s for people
who can do the analysis, the proper analysis of—but also have to take into account the
capabilities required and we need to get about the business of determining the exact
capabilities that we need which would take into account National Science Foundation
requirements, Coast Guard requirements, requirements to break-in at McMurdo, to come up
with a capable ship.62
61 Source: Transcript of hearing.
62 Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
32
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
At another point in the hearing, he stated:
As I said, sir, I am truly ambivalent to this except from what I experienced. I do have now
two points, yes the Navy leases some ships, but we've got a Navy that has well over 300
ships.
So if they lose a leased vessel or something is pulled back or something happens, they have
plenty of other ships they can fall back upon. Right now, all I am falling back on is the Coast
Guard cutter Healy. And it feels good to know that we own that and that is our ship for 30 or
40 years and we can rely upon it.
In terms of leasing, I don't know. My personal experience is I lease one of my two cars and I
pay a lot of money leasing my car. But at the end of the lease period, I have no car and I've
spent a lot of money. So I don’t know if that’s directly applicable to ships as well, but right
now I got half my garage is empty because I just turned one in.63
At another point in the hearing, he stated:
We’ve looked through the legal considerations on this, as long as we have a Coast Guard
crew. In fact, you can even make a mixed crew of civilians and Coast Guard people. But as
long as it’s commanding by—commanded by [a] commissioned officer, you can assert
sovereignty, you can take it into war zones and, in fact, the Navy does that as well.64
Another witness at the hearing—Mead Treadwell, the lieutenant governor of Alaska—stated:
[Regarding] The issue of the ships, the company that is building these ships for Shell [Oil]
has visited with me and other state officials, and that’s why you heard us say in our
testimony that we think the leasing option should be considered. We don’t have a way to
judge the relative cost. But if on the face of it, it seems like it may be a way to get us the
capability that the admiral needs.65
Another witness at the hearing—Jeffrey Garrett, a retired Coast Guard admiral who spent much
of his career on polar icebreakers—stated:
The perspective I could offer was when I was a member of the Cameron [sic:
Commandant’s?] staff back in the last ‘80s here in Washington, we were directed to pursue
exactly the same sort of lease versus buy analysis, and in fact, the Coast Guard had a two
track procurement strategy to compare leasing a new Polar icebreaker or buying it.
And after over a year of analysis, studies, discussion with other agencies looking around,
what became clear was, number one, there was no off-the-shelf asset readily available. And
secondly, that in the long run, if you—when you cost it all out and the value of the stream of
payments, leasing would actually cost more.
63 Source: Transcript of hearing.
64 Source: Transcript of hearing.
65 Source: Transcript of hearing. The transcript reviewed by CRS attributes this quote to the GAO witness, Stephen
Caldwell, but this appears to be a mistake, as the statement is made by a member of the first witness panel, which
included the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Lieutenant Governor. The GAO witness was a member of the
second witness panel. The reference in the quote to “me and other state officials” indicates that the witness speaking
was the Lieutenant Governor and not the Commandant.
Congressional Research Service
33
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
And when we did the recapitalization analysis recently, we also reviewed leasing again, and
the I think the findings in that report indicate more expensive over the life of the vessel by
about 12 percent.66
When asked why this was the finding, Garrett stated:
A couple of technical things. First of all, whoever builds the ship—and again, this will have
to be ship built for the Coast Guard since there’s not something off-the-shelf out there that
you could lease. Whoever builds it has to raise capital, and nobody can raise capital more
inexpensively than the federal government.
Secondly, whoever leases the ship is obviously going to make—want to make a profit on that
lease. So just like as Admiral Papp referred to leasing your car, you know, there’s going to
be a profit involved. And so, if you take the net present value of all of those, of those
payments, you got come out with the more expensive package for the same, if you're
comparing the same vessel.
The other, the other issue I think is more intangible and that’s just the fact that we're really
not talking about an auxiliary like the Naval, like the Navy leases a supply ship or something
like that. We're talking about a frontline Coast Guard capital asset, if you will, capital ship
that’s going to be doing frontline government missions projecting U.S. sovereignty.
And you know, the Navy doesn't lease those kinds of ships for its frontline fleet and the
Coast Guard doesn't lease those kinds of ships for its mission capabilities, and that’s what
we're really talking about in terms of the ship we need here.
So while a lease may look attractive, I think there are several things that indicate it may not
be the right way to go. And the—I think that’s what we came down to. And again, this is all
documented in the past and that late ‘80s analysis was re-summarizing the president’s 1990
report to Congress which basically says leasing is more expensive and it’s not the way to go
for a new ship. That was the ship that actually became the Healy then.67
The prepared statement of Stephen Caldwell, the GAO witness at the hearing, states:
The three reports discussed earlier in this [GAO] statement all identify funding as a central
issue in addressing the existing and anticipated challenges related to icebreakers. In addition
to the Coast Guard budget analysis included in the Recapitalization report, all three reports
reviewed alternative financing options, including the potential for leasing icebreakers, or
funding icebreakers through the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the Department of
Defense (DOD). Although DOD has used leases and charters in the past when procurement
funding levels were insufficient to address mission requirements and capabilities, both the
Recapitalization report and the High Latitude Study determined that the lack of existing
domestic commercial vessels capable of meeting the Coast Guard’s mission requirements
reduces the availability of leasing options for the Coast Guard. Additionally, an initial cost-
benefit analysis of one type of available leasing option included in the Recapitalization report
and the High Latitude Study suggests that it may ultimately be more costly to the Coast
Guard over the 30-year icebreaker lifespan.68
66 Source: Transcript of hearing.
67 Source: Transcript of hearing.
68 Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observations on Arctic Requirements, Icebreakers, and
Coordination with Stakeholders, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
34
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Legislative Activity for FY2014
FY2014 Funding Request
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget requested $2 million in FY2014 acquisition funding
to continue survey and design activities for a new polar icebreaker, and projects an additional
$228 million in FY2015-FY2018 for acquiring the ship.
FY2014 DHS Appropriations Act (Division F of H.R. 3547/P.L. 113-
76)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 113-91 of May 29, 2013) on H.R.
2217, recommends approval of the Coast Guard’s request for $2 million in FY2014 acquisition
funding to continue survey and design activities for a new polar icebreaker (pages 71 and 73).
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 113-77 of July 18, 2013) on H.R.
2217, recommends approval of the Coast Guard’s request for $2 million in FY2014 acquisition
funding to continue survey and design activities for a new polar icebreaker (page 84).The report
states:
POLAR ICEBREAKER
The recommendation includes $2,000,000, as requested, to continue survey and design
activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker.
The Committee notes that the Coast Guard’s High Latitude Study calls for a minimum of
three new heavy polar icebreakers. Currently, the service only has one working icebreaker,
the Healy, which is a medium service ship that is used primarily for scientific missions in the
Arctic. One of the Coast Guard’s two heavy icebreakers, the 37 year-old Polar Star, is being
refurbished and reactivated in fiscal year 2013 to provide capability for another 7 to 10 years.
The service’s other heavy icebreaker, the 35-year-old Polar Sea, is out of service based on its
mechanical state and cost to repair.
The Coast Guard estimates that construction of a new icebreaker will not be completed until
2024 and that the vessel will not be fully ready for operations until 2026 or 2027. Given the
importance of this polar icebreaking capacity to facilitate Arctic shipping, fisheries, and
energy development in the United States, the Coast Guard must accelerate the development
of operational requirements for the vessel, ensure the capacity and viability of the industrial
base, and explore alternative acquisition strategies that may be more expeditious and cost
(...continued)
Director, Homeland Security and Justice, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, p. 24.
Congressional Research Service
35
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
effective, including the use of parentcraft designs or leasing options, to support this critical
mission requirement.
The Coast Guard’s Alternatives Analysis for the acquisition of a heavy polar icebreaker is to
include: (1) an examination of existing heavy polar icebreaker parent craft designs that could
potentially be utilized; (2) specific recommendations to expedite the acquisition schedule;
and (3) an updated budgetary, market, operational, and legal analysis of alternative
acquisition arrangements for a heavy polar icebreaker, including various forms of vessel
leasing such as those used by the United States Navy, the National Science Foundation, other
Federal agencies, and the domestic maritime industry. The report shall include a
consideration of pre-determined, fixed-price, long-term leasing arrangements, demise
charters, and contractor-owned, contractor-operated charters, as well as the use of
appropriate contract incentives and penalties that have the potential to expedite construction
while ensuring vessel performance and durability. The report shall also include an
examination of potential costs and savings to the Federal Government over the next 10, 20,
and 30 year periods using various types of leasing arrangements as compared to a
Government owned vessel, including potential savings that may result from contractor
assumption of financial responsibility for maintenance costs (at the Coast Guard’s direction)
and potential savings that may result from contractor assumption of personnel costs for
certain positions that do not exercise any combat or law enforcement functions (including
associated savings to the Federal Government from reduced training requirements). The
Alternatives Analysis is to be submitted to the Committee not later than 15 days after it is
completed. (Pages 88-89)
The report also states:
ACQUISITION PORTFOLIO REVIEW
The fiscal year 2014 CIP that was submitted to the Committee on April 19, 2013, calls for a
radical change to Coast Guard recapitalization efforts in future years. The funding levels
suggested in the plan would decrease the number of fast response cutters to a level that
jeopardizes the program, stop the acquisition of new aircraft, delay completion of the
offshore patrol cutter, put the acquisition of a new polar icebreaker at risk, and scale back
investment in deteriorating shore facilities. If enacted, this investment plan would have dire
consequences on the Coast Guard’s ability to carry out its missions, such as: interdicting
drugs in the transit zone; managing a mass migration event; responding to oil spills; fisheries
enforcement; and the need to increase U.S. presence in the Arctic. The CIP states that DHS
will conduct a comprehensive portfolio review in 2013 that will help develop revised
acquisition program baselines and direct key acquisition decision events to reflect acquisition
priorities and operational requirements achievable within the funding projections contained
in the fiscal year 2014 CIP. A major flaw in the fiscal year 2014 CIP is the Department’s
conclusion that the funding levels it contains for the “Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements” appropriation are consistent with the pre-sequester caps imposed on
discretionary budget authority through 2021 under the Budget Control Act of 2011. The
reality is that the fiscal year 2014 budget request for the “Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements” appropriation is 38 percent below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level, after
factoring out emergency supplemental funding, while total discretionary spending under the
Budget Control Act of 2011 increases by 1.4 percent between fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year
2014. In conducting the portfolio review described in the CIP, the Department shall use more
appropriate outyear funding levels that are reflective of the fiscal year 2013 enacted level for
the “Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements” appropriation, as adjusted by the pre-
sequester caps set in the Budget Control Act of 2011. Finally, the review is to include
acquisition cost, asset capability and quantity tradeoffs, and the overall impact to the Coast
Guard’s ability to carry out all of its statutory missions. The results of the review shall be
validated by an independent third party selected by the Secretary and the Commandant to
Congressional Research Service
36
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
ensure that a realistic budget outlook does not censor necessary data on mission needs and
tradeoffs. The report by the independent third party shall be provided to the Committee in
conjunction with the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request. (Pages 85-86)
The report also states:
INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESPONSE CAPABILITIES IN THE ARCTIC
The Committee is concerned about the lack of assets available for the Coast Guard’s Arctic
mission. No later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this act, the Commandant is
directed to submit a report to the Committee comparing the costs of facility renovations to
homeport and support an NSC in Alaska with the annual costs of transit time to Alaska area
of operations for deployments and days lost to casualty repairs.
ARCTIC STRATEGY
The Coast Guard recently released its Arctic Strategy, which looks at the changing
conditions in the region and contemplates future requirements. The strategy outlines three
broad objectives: improving awareness; modernizing governance; and broadening
partnerships. To carry out these objectives over the long term, the Coast Guard next needs to
develop an implementation plan, including the identification of necessary capabilities,
requirements, authorities, and resources. Therefore, the Coast Guard is directed to submit an
Arctic strategy implementation plan no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
act.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
The Committee wants to ensure that as activities in the Arctic expand, necessary response
capabilities exists in the region. No later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act,
the Secretary is directed to submit a report to the Committee on activities that have occurred
pursuant to section 307(b) of Public Law 111–281 and how the Department is meeting the
requirements being developed in the agreements envisioned by that subsection.69 (Pages 80-
81)
69 H.R. 3619/P.L. 111-281 of October 15, 2010 is the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. Section 307 of the act
states:
SEC. 307. ARCTIC MARINE SHIPPING ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to ensure safe and secure maritime shipping in the Arctic
including the availability of aids to navigation, vessel escorts, spill response capability, and
maritime search and rescue in the Arctic.
(b) International Maritime Organization Agreements- To carry out the purpose of this section, the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating is encouraged to enter into
negotiations through the International Maritime Organization to conclude and execute agreements
to promote coordinated action among the United States, Russia, Canada, Iceland, Norway, and
Denmark and other seafaring and Arctic nations to ensure, in the Arctic—
(1) placement and maintenance of aids to navigation;
(2) appropriate marine safety, tug, and salvage capabilities;
(3) oil spill prevention and response capability;
(4) maritime domain awareness, including long-range vessel tracking; and
(5) search and rescue.
(c) Coordination by Committee on the Maritime Transportation System- The Committee on the
Maritime Transportation System established under a directive of the President in the Ocean Action
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
37
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Final Version
The final version of the FY2014 DHS Appropriations Act (Division F of H.R. 3547/P.L. 113-76
of January 17, 2014) approves the Coast Guard’s request for $2 million in FY2014 acquisition
funding to continue survey and design activities for a new polar icebreaker (see pdf page 254 of
(...continued)
Plan, issued December 17, 2004, shall coordinate the establishment of domestic transportation
policies in the Arctic necessary to carry out the purpose of this section.
(d) Agreements and Contracts- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may, subject to the availability of appropriations, enter into cooperative agreements,
contracts, or other agreements with, or make grants to individuals and governments to carry out the
purpose of this section or any agreements established under subsection (b).
(e) Icebreaking- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
promote safe maritime navigation by means of icebreaking where necessary, feasible, and effective
to carry out the purposes of this section.
(f) Independent Ice Breaker Analyses-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall require a nongovernmental, independent
third party (other than the National Academy of Sciences) that has extensive experience in the
analysis of military procurements, to—
(A) conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis, taking into account future Coast Guard budget
projections (which assume Coast Guard budget growth of no more than inflation) and other
recapitalization needs, of—
(i) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers for operation by the
Coast Guard;
(ii) constructing new polar icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard;
(iii) construction of new polar icebreakers by the National Science Foundation for operation by the
Foundation;
(iv) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers by the National
Science Foundation for operation by the Foundation; and
(v) any combination of the activities described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) to carry out the
missions of the Coast Guard and the National Science Foundation; and
(B) conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impact on all Coast Guard activities, including
operations, maintenance, procurements, and end strength, of the acquisition of polar icebreakers
described in subparagraph (A) by the Coast Guard or the National Science Foundation assuming
that total Coast Guard funding will not increase more than the annual rate of inflation.
(2) REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit a report containing the results of the
analyses required under paragraph (1), together with recommendations the Commandant considers
appropriate under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
(g) High-Latitude Study- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date
of completion of the ongoing High-Latitude Study to assess polar icebreaking mission requirements
for all Coast Guard missions including search and rescue, marine pollution response and
prevention, fisheries enforcement, and maritime commerce, whichever occurs later, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a report containing the results of the study, together
with recommendations the Commandant considers appropriate under section 93(a)(24) of title 14,
United States Code, to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
(h) Arctic Definition- In this section the term `Arctic’ has the same meaning as in section 112 of the
Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4111).
Congressional Research Service
38
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
270 of the explanatory statement for Divisions D, E, and F of H.R. 3547). The explanatory
statement for Divisions D, E, and F of H.R. 3547 states:
Polar Icebreaker Alternatives Analysis
As detailed in the Senate report, the Coast Guard is directed to submit an alternatives
analysis for the acquisition of a heavy polar icebreaker. (pdf page 210 of 270)
Author Contact Information
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
Congressional Research Service
39