Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker 
 


Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition 
 


Program 
 


OIG-11-31 January 2011 
Ojfice o/lJlSpeclor General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Seturity 

Washington, DC 20528 

Homeland

Security JAN 19 2011 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office ofInspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of I 978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the Coast Guard's Polar Icebreaker 

Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program. It is based on interviews with 

employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a 

review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

/' -/ r) / ;1 f.-t!~ u{. {~z"/v"...-.-JAnne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1 
 


Background..........................................................................................................................2
 
 

Results of Audit ...................................................................................................................6 
 


The Coast Guard Needs Budgetary Authority Over Its Icebreakers ..............................7 
 

The Coast Guard Is Unable to Accomplish Its Arctic Missions With Current 
 

Icebreakers ..................................................................................................................9
 

The Coast Guard Is Unable to Accomplish Its Antarctic Missions With Current 
 

Icebreakers ...............................................................................................................10
 

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................12
 
 

Recommendations..............................................................................................................12
 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................................12 
 


Appendixes 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................16 
 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .......................................17 
 


Appendix C: Major Contributors to This Report ......................................................19 
 


Appendix D: Report Distribution ..............................................................................20 
 


Abbreviations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 
 


FY Fiscal Year 
 


NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
 
 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 


NSF National Science Foundation 
 


OIG Office of Inspector General 
 


USCG United States Coast Guard 
 

OIG
 
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

According to 14 U.S.C. § 2, 6 U.S.C. § 468, Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive 25, Presidential Decision Directive 26, the 

U.S. Coast Guard is required to develop, establish, maintain, and 

operate the United States icebreaking fleet in the Polar Regions. 

We audited the Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, 

Upgrade, and Acquisition Program to determine the Coast Guard’s 

need for heavy-duty icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the 

Polar Regions. 

The Coast Guard does not have the necessary budgetary control 

over its 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 icebreaker, 

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. 

The Coast Guard agreed with our five recommendations to 

improve the operation and management of its Ice Operations 

Program. 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 
 

Page 1 
 
 

Background 

In 1965, the U.S. Navy transferred control of all United States 

icebreaking ships to the Coast Guard. The original fleet included 

eight polar-class ships capable of performing icebreaking missions 

in the Polar Regions. 

According to 14 U.S.C. § 2, 6 U.S.C. § 468, Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive 25 "Arctic Region Policy," Presidential 

Decision Directive/NSC-26 "U.S. Antarctic Policy," and a 

Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Navy, the Coast Guard 

is charged with developing, establishing, maintaining, and 

operating the United States icebreaking fleet in the Polar Regions. 

Further, under 14 U.S.C. § 141, the Coast Guard provides 

icebreaking services to the National Science Foundation, which 

provides a platform for scientific research by keeping ice-laden 

waters open for navigation. 

The Coast Guard commissioned two heavy-duty polar class 

icebreakers, the Polar Star in 1976 and the Polar Sea in 1978. The 

Coast Guard then decommissioned the rest of its aging fleet by the 

late 1980s, leaving only the Polar Star and Polar Sea capable of 

performing its polar icebreaking missions. Recognizing the need 

for scientific capabilities in the Arctic, the Coast Guard 

commissioned the Healy in 1999, bringing the number of polarcapable icebreakers to three. The Healy is a medium-duty 

icebreaker designed to conduct scientific research in the Arctic. 

Table 1 highlights the classification and capabilities for each type 

of icebreaker currently in the Coast Guard’s fleet. 

Table 1. Classifications of Icebreaking Ships 

Types of Icebreakers Heavy-Duty 

Icebreaker 

(Polar Star and Polar Sea) 

Medium-Duty 

Icebreaker 

(Healy) 

Icebreaking 

Capability 

6 feet at 3 knots 4.5 at 3 knots 

Ice-ramming 

Capability 

21 feet thick 8 feet thick 

Minimum 

Displacement 

12,000 tons 8,000 tons 

Operating 

Temperature 

–60° Fahrenheit –50° Fahrenheit 

Year-Round 

Operating Capability 

In all Arctic 

ice-covered waters 

In moderate 

multiyear ice 

conditions 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program
 
 

Page 2
 
 
In 2006, the budgetary authority for the Coast Guard’s icebreakers 

was transferred to the National Science Foundation (NSF) because 

it had been the primary user of the ships. However, the Polar Star 

was not kept operational, and in 2006 it was placed in an "in 

commission, special" status and is in the process of reactivation. 

Further, in May 2010, the Polar Sea suffered a critical engine 

failure and the Coast Guard immediately removed it from service. 

The ship is not expected to be operational until 2011. This leaves 

the Healy as the Coast Guard’s sole operational icebreaker as of 

August 31, 2010. 

In addition to the duties assigned under 14 U.S.C § 2, the Coast 

Guard has 11 statutory missions outlined in section 888 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 468). 

These missions include both Homeland Security missions and nonHomeland Security missions, such as ice operations. The Coast 

Guard’s icebreaking ships are managed by its Ice Operations 

Program. Ice Operations missions include facilitating the 

movement of commerce through ice-laden waters, conducting 

International Ice Patrol, assisting other government agencies with 

scientific activities, and supporting the performance of Coast 

Guard programs in waters constrained by ice. 

Both 14 U.S.C. § 2 and 6 U.S.C. § 468 require the Coast Guard to 

perform multiple missions in the Polar Regions, including defense 

readiness; ice operations; search and rescue; marine environmental 

protection; and ports, waterways, and coastal security. The Coast 

Guard has traditionally had an extensive role in the Arctic and 

Antarctic, as it provides the principal U.S. presence in those 

regions. 

Figure 1 provides a timeline of icebreaker service and depicts the 

icebreakers’ current inability to meet Coast Guard missions. 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 
 

Page 3 
 
Figure 1. Coast Guard Icebreaker Assets – Service Timeline 

Source (Photos): U.S. Coast Guard 

Arctic Region 

The Coast Guard currently provides the Healy to the NSF for 

scientific research in the Arctic region. The Coast Guard uses 

icebreakers to support Arctic research, including biology, sea ice, 

marine geology, marine physics, cartography, oceanography, and 

atmospheric science. The Coast Guard also uses icebreakers to 

collect multibeam sonar and topography data to help resolve 

claims for offshore natural resources. Additionally, the Coast 

Guard is responsible for search and rescue missions while ensuring 

the nation has assured access to exercise its rights and 

responsibilities in its territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic 

Zone. It also must provide the Department of Defense assured 

access to ice-impacted international Arctic waters. 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 

Page 4 
While the United States currently has only three icebreakers in its 

fleet, with the Healy as its sole operational icebreaker today, 

foreign nations with interests in the Polar Regions have more 

significant fleets, as indicated by table 2. 

Table 2. Operational Foreign Icebreaker Fleets 

Country of Origin Icebreaking Fleet 

Russia 18 

Finland 9 

Canada 6 

Sweden 5 

The United States is one of eight nations participating in the Arctic 

Council, a regional intergovernmental forum that addresses all 

aspects of sustainable development affecting Arctic nations. In 

2005, the Arctic Council published The Arctic Climate Impact 

Assessment, which reported on the ongoing rapid and severe 

climate changes in the Arctic. It noted that reduced sea ice is very 

likely to increase marine transportation and improve access to 

resources. The Arctic Council and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have noted a sharp decline 

in sea ice cover. Estimates of Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness 

between 2004 and 2008 have shown an overall thinning. 

Computer models predict that within 30 years, the Arctic could be 

almost completely free of ice during the summer months. 

The Coast Guard will face new operational challenges as 

conditions in the Arctic change. In the coming years, scientific 

data indicate that passageways will become more navigable for 

resource exploration, commercial shipping, tourism, science, and 

fishing. However, even as the sea ice retreats, significant icecovered areas remain in the Polar Regions. As ships begin to 

traverse newly opened passageways, Coast Guard response will be 

required for hazards such as ships grounded by underwater 

icebergs or trapped by floating sea ice. Also, the Coast Guard will 

be required to respond in the event of oil spills or ship failures. 

Icebreakers will be the primary platform the Coast Guard uses to 

respond to these events. 

Antarctic Region 

The United States has an extensive role in the Antarctic, dating 

back to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. The Coast Guard is required 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 

Page 5 
by 14 U.S.C. § 2 to develop, establish, maintain, and operate 

icebreaking facilities to promote safety in U.S. waters and also in 

non-U.S. waters pursuant to international agreements. The United 

States maintains three NSF-operated year-round stations in the 

Antarctic: McMurdo Station, Palmer Station, and the AmundsenScott South Pole Station. This presence protects the United States’ 

stance on Antarctic sovereignty, secures its role in the Treaty’s 

decision-making system, and helps maintain the political and legal 

balance necessary for success of the treaty. In 1994, President 

Clinton issued a decision directive1

 on the Antarctic and presented 

four objectives for the United States: (1) protecting the unspoiled 

environment of Antarctica and its ecosystems, (2) conducting 

scientific research, (3) maintaining Antarctica as an area of 

international cooperation reserved exclusively for peaceful 

purposes, and (4) ensuring the conservation of the oceans 

surrounding Antarctica. 

The principal role of the Coast Guard in the Antarctic has been to 

provide logistics support by breaking a channel into McMurdo 

Sound for the resupply of McMurdo Station by tanker and cargo 

ships. In addition to the resupply of McMurdo Station, the Coast 

Guard is required to design, procure, maintain, and deploy 

icebreaking ships to provide a platform for Antarctic research. 

Until recently, the NSF depended entirely on Coast Guard 

icebreakers to resupply McMurdo Station. However, since 2005, 

due to mechanical problems with the Coast Guard’s heavy-duty 

icebreakers, the NSF has contracted with foreign-owned 

icebreakers to assist or conduct these missions. 

Antarctic ice conditions can vary from year to year. In years with 

heavier ice, two heavy-duty icebreakers are needed to clear the 

channel into McMurdo Sound to allow ships to carry supplies to 

the science stations. In years with lighter ice conditions, one 

icebreaker is necessary to clear the channel, with one additional 

icebreaker on standby in the event it is needed. 

Results of Audit 

The Coast Guard does not have the necessary budgetary control over its 

icebreakers, nor does it have a sufficient number of icebreakers to accomplish its 

missions in the Polar Regions. The Coast Guard Ice Operations Program is facing 

1

 Presidential Decision Directive/National Security Council-26 Memorandum, United States Policy on the 

Arctic and Antarctic Regions, dated June 9, 1994. 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 
 

Page 6 
 
 

major challenges during a critical time in the Polar Regions. Currently, the Coast 

Guard has only one medium-duty operational icebreaker, 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 be able to perform all of 

its missions, will lose critical icebreaking expertise, and will be at the mercy of 

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 U.S. interests in 

the Arctic and Antarctic regions. 

The Coast Guard Needs Budgetary Authority Over Its Icebreakers 

Currently, the Coast Guard does not have the necessary budgetary control 

of its icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the Polar Regions. In 

2006, Congress approved an Administration request to shift funding for 

the Coast Guard’s icebreakers to the NSF, since the icebreakers were used 

primarily by NSF to perform scientific operations. According to 

Congress, NSF was required to use those funds to reimburse the USCG for 

any icebreaking services provided under a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) between the USCG and NSF. Congress continued to fund the 

icebreaking mission in this manner until fiscal year 2009, at which time it 

shifted partial funding to USCG for reactivation of the Polar Star.

2 Then, 

in fiscal year 2010, Congress transferred $54 million from NSF to USCG 

to cover the year's anticipated operation and maintenance costs for 

icebreaking services.3

 In the accompanying conference report, Congress 

noted that it expected USCG to request polar icebreaking funding for FY 

2011 and directed USCG and NSF to update their MOA to reflect the 

change in budget authority. However, USCG did not request that funding 

transfer in its FY 2011 budget request as directed by Congress. 

The transfer of funding to the NSF has spread management decisions 

related to the polar icebreakers across two agencies. The NSF is now 

effectively responsible for the Coast Guard icebreaking program’s 

financial decisions that drive mission decisions. Under the MOA in effect 

since 2005, the Coast Guard must submit a yearly budget plan for 

approval by the NSF. Even though the MOA hinges such approval on 

mutual agreement between the parties, since 2006 (with the exception of 

2010), the NSF has effectively determined how funding will be spent on 

maintenance, upgrades, and tasking of the USCG's icebreakers. Thus, the 

Coast Guard agreed to terms in the MOA that left it tasked with operating 

2

 See FY 2009 appropriations laws and accompanying conference reports. 

3

 See FY 2010 appropriations laws and accompanying conference reports. 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 

Page 7 
ships for which it has little budgetary or management control. In effect, 

the Coast Guard is unable to conduct its own icebreaking missions without 

first obtaining the NSF’s approval. 

Further, NSF’s budgetary authority does not require NSF to conduct 

maintenance on the icebreaking ships. As a result, maintenance has been 

deferred, which has affected the ships' long-term operability. Because the 

NSF’s primary use of icebreakers has been to conduct scientific research, 

it schedules the ships to fulfill that mission. The Coast Guard’s missions 

go beyond science support. The Coast Guard should have the funding and 

authority to perform the full range of mission responsibilities within its 

icebreaking program. 

An example of this problem is the underutilization of the Polar Sea. This 

heavy-duty icebreaker is available 185 days per year to conduct missions. 

The ship is scheduled for maintenance and repair the remaining 180 days. 

Over the past 3 years, the NSF has only used the Polar Sea an average of 

101 of the available 185 days because this ship does not have the robust 

scientific research capabilities of other icebreakers, such as the Healy and 

Sweden’s Oden. The Coast Guard has been unable to use the ship’s 

remaining days to meet its mission requirements because it does not have 

budgetary control for the ship. For the remaining 84 days per year, this 

icebreaker sits in its Seattle port, fully staffed. 

The use of the Polar Sea has diminished over the past 3 years. The Coast 

Guard has 141 crewmembers assigned to the Polar Sea, who stay with the 

ship even when it is in port. In 2007, crewmembers spent 142 days 

conducting ice operations missions. That number dropped drastically to 

82 days in 2009. Without experience operating the ship in the Polar 

Regions, crewmembers’ operational proficiency conducting ice operations 

continues to decline. The Polar Sea utilization is outlined in table 3. 

Table 3. Polar Sea Service Chart 

Fiscal Year Number of Days Utilized 

2007 142 

2008 79 

2009 82 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program
 
 

Page 8
 
 
�

�

�

The Coast Guard Is Unable to Accomplish Its Arctic Missions 

With Current Icebreakers 

The Coast Guard is unable to accomplish its Arctic missions with the 

current icebreaker resources. The NSF uses the Healy, the Coast Guard’s 

sole medium-duty icebreaker, to perform scientific research. NOAA and 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) also have 

scientific requirements necessitating the use of icebreaking ships, which 

the Healy is unable to accommodate due to the NSF demand. In addition, 

the Coast Guard has other mission requirements in the Arctic, including 

fisheries enforcement, and tribal outreach in Alaska that are largely going 

unfulfilled. 

The Coast Guard’s icebreaking resources are unlikely to meet future 

demands. Table 4 outlines the missions that Coast Guard is unable to 

meet in the Arctic with its current icebreaking resources. 

Table 4. 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 Antarctic 

Further, the Coast Guard has not followed its life cycle replacement plan, 

which requires replacement of icebreaking ships after 30 years in service. 

The Coast Guard has not requested replacement of its aging icebreaker 

fleet, but has performed major reliability maintenance. In 2004 through 

2006, Polar Sea underwent a service life extension project, which added 

an additional 7-10 years of service life. The Polar Star is currently 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 

Page 9 
undergoing a 30-month reactivation, which should also add an additional 

7-10 years of service life. 

Should the Coast Guard not obtain funding for new icebreakers or major 

service life extensions for its existing icebreakers with sufficient leadtime, 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. 

The Coast Guard Is Unable to Accomplish Its Antarctic Missions 

With Current Icebreakers 

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 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. In 2005, the Coast Guard 

recommended the use of a second ship to assist the Polar Star in 

completing the resupply mission due to the extreme ice conditions. The 

Polar Sea was undergoing repairs and no other U.S. icebreakers were 

available. It was necessary to lease the Russian icebreaker Krasin to assist 

the Polar Star in the resupply mission. In 2006, ice conditions lessened 

and only one ship, the Swedish icebreaker Oden, was needed to complete 

the resupply, with the Polar Sea in standby status. Heavy ice conditions 

occurred again in 2007, and the Polar Star was in caretaker status and 

unavailable. The Oden was hired to assist the Polar Sea in completing the 

resupply mission. In 2008 and 2009, the Oden performed the resupply 

mission with the Polar Sea on standby. 

Figure 2 identifies the location of McMurdo, Amundsen-Scott South Pole, 

and Palmer stations, and shows the operating areas of research ships and 

Coast Guard icebreakers. 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 
 

Page 10 
 
Figure 2. U.S. Research Stations in Antarctica 

Source: National Science Foundation 

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. Table 5 outlines the missions that will not be met 

without operational heavy-duty icebreakers. 

Table 5. Antarctic 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’ 

environmental compliance 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program
 
 

Page 11
 
 
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. 

Recommendation #5: Request appropriations necessary to meet 

mission requirements in the Arctic and Antarctic. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

We obtained written comments from the Coast Guard and the 

National Science Foundation. We have included a copy of the 

Coast Guard’s comments in Appendix B. We also reviewed the 

Coast Guard’s and NSF’s technical comments and made changes 

where appropriate. 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 
 

Page 12 
 
The NSF provided informal comments to the draft report, which 

outlined its responsibilities in the Polar Regions. While the NSF 

also plays a critical role in operations in the Polar Regions, our 

report focuses on the Coast Guard’s role for providing icebreakers 

in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. The NSF did not object 

to the report recommendations and welcomes the opportunity to 

continue discussions on how best to meet icebreaking needs in the 

U.S. Antarctic Program. 

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. A summary of 

the Coast Guard’s responses to the recommendations follow. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 1: 

Concur: The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation to 

request budget authority for the Polar Icebreakers and will work 

with the Administration for the return of budget authority. The 

Coast Guard has already agreed to a new Memorandum of 

Understanding with NSF to take effect with the return of budget 

authority. 

OIG Analysis 

We consider this recommendation open and unresolved. This 

recommendation will remain unresolved until the Coast Guard 

provides an action plan to address the recommendation that 

includes responsible officials and the targeted completion date. 

This recommendation will remain open until the Coast Guard 

provides documentation of its budget request for the Polar 

Icebreakers’ operation, maintenance, and upgrade. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 2: 

Concur: The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation to 

request congressional clarification on Coast Guard’s Arctic 

missions and will work with the Administration to clarify Arctic 

mission requirements. 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 
 

Page 13 
 
OIG Analysis 

We consider this recommendation open and unresolved. This 

recommendation will remain unresolved until the Coast Guard 

provides an action plan to address the recommendation that 

includes responsible officials and the targeted completion date. 

This recommendation will remain open until the Coast Guard 

provides documentation of its request for Congressional 

clarification on the Coast Guard’s Arctic missions. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 3: 

Concur: The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation to 

request congressional clarification on Coast Guard’s Antarctic 

missions and will work with the Administration to clarify Antarctic 

mission requirements. 

OIG Analysis 

We consider this recommendation open and unresolved. This 

recommendation will remain unresolved until the Coast Guard 

provides an action plan to address the recommendation that 

includes responsible officials and the targeted completion date. 

This recommendation will remain open until the Coast Guard 

provides documentation of its request for Congressional 

clarification on the Coast Guard’s Antarctic missions. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 4: 

Concur: The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation to 

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. Coast Guard has begun a 

business-case analysis. This analysis, scheduled for completion in 

early 2011, will evaluate the business case for replacing or 

performing service-life extensions on the Coast Guard’s two heavy 

icebreakers. 

OIG Analysis 

We consider this recommendation open and unresolved. This 

recommendation will remain unresolved until the Coast Guard 

provides an action plan to address the recommendation that 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 

Page 14 
includes responsible officials and the targeted completion date. 

This recommendation will remain open until the Coast Guard 

provides a copy of the completed business case analysis. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 5: 

Concur: The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation to 

request the appropriations necessary to its meet mission 

requirements in the Arctic and Antarctic. The Coast Guard is 

currently analyzing long-term Arctic and Antarctic mission needs, 

which will be used to determine resource requirements. The Coast 

Guard will work with DHS and the Administration to request 

appropriations to meet these mission requirements, as appropriate. 

OIG Analysis 

We consider this recommendation open and unresolved. This 

recommendation will remain unresolved until the Coast Guard 

provides an action plan to address the recommendation that 

includes responsible officials and the targeted completion date. 

This recommendation will remain open until the Coast Guard 

provides a copy of the budget request sufficient to meet its Arctic and 

Antarctic mission requirements. 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 
 

Page 15 
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope and Methodology 

We performed an audit of the Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker 

Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program. The objective of 

our audit was to determine the Coast Guard’s need for heavy-duty 

icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the Polar Regions. 

We performed the audit at Coast Guard Headquarters in 

Washington, DC; Pacific Area Command in Alameda, California; 

District 17 in Juneau, Alaska; District 13 in Seattle, Washington; 

and the National Science Foundation in Ballston, Virginia. Our 

audit included analysis of the Coast Guard’s current and future 

missions, other federal agency requirements necessitating the use 

of icebreakers, the Coast Guard’s icebreaking assets, icebreaking 

assets of other nations, and the ice conditions in the Arctic and 

Antarctic. 

We reviewed applicable federal laws and regulations, national 

policies, interagency Memorandums of Agreement, prior 

Government Accountability Office reports, Congressional 

Research Service reports, and congressional hearings. We 

interviewed officials at Coast Guard Headquarters and Area 

Command, NSF, NOAA, NASA, and the Department of State. We 

also interviewed icebreaking agencies from foreign nations, 

including Canada, Finland, and Sweden. 

We analyzed program plans, budget data, after-action cruise 

reports, and maintenance records. We also obtained and analyzed 

a draft copy of the High Latitude Study, the most recent study 

being completed on the Coast Guard’s Arctic and Antarctic 

missions. We reviewed and tested internal controls pertinent to 

our overall objective and used this information to plan the audit 

and determine the nature, timing, and extent of our review and 

analysis. 

We conducted this audit between January and August 2010 under 

the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and 

according to generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

audit findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our audit findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 
 

Page 16 
 
U.S.D........ .._ 2100 S<<OIIIl Simi, S.W.• Slop 124S

Homeland Security WtlhinglOn, OC l059l.(l()()l SbffSymboI£G-Ill

United Stites PIlon<: (202) 312-lSlJ

fa' (2Ql)lT.l-2Jll Coast Guard

7501

DEC 08 2010

MEM~DUM

From: . A. TAYLOR.

-cc_- RDML Reply 10 Audit Manager,

COMDT (CG-8) Attn of: Mark Kulwicki

(202) 372-3533

To: Anne L. Richards

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

Subj: COMMENTS ON DHS DIG DRAFT REPORT: "ruE COAST GUARD'S POLAR

ICEBREAKER MAINTENANCE, UPGRADE AND ACQUISTION PROGRAM"

Ref: (a) DHS Inspector General Draft Report OIG-lO-050-AUD-USCG ofOclober, 2010

I. This memorandum summarizes the Coast Guard response to the subjt:{:t report, per your

req~st.

2. The Coast Guard has no objection 10 the five recommendations as IKIted below:

a, Recommendation #1: The Coast Guard will continue to work with the Administration for

the return ofbudget authority. A Memorandum ofUnderstanding between the Coasl

Guard and the National Science Foundation to take effect with return of budget authority

has been approved by both agencies.

b. Recommendation #2: The Coast Guard will continue to work with the Administration to

clarify Arctic mission requirements.

c. Recommendation #3: The Coast Guard will continue to work with the Administration to

clarify Antarctic mission requirements.

d. Recommendation #4: The Coast Guard has begun a business-ease analysis, as directed in

the Coast Guard Authorization Act, P.L. 111-281 Sec. 307{f). This analysis, scheduled

for completion in early 2011, will evaluate the business case for replacing or perfonning

service-life extensions on the Coast Guard's two heavy icebreakers.

e. Recommendation #5: The Coast Guard is currently analyzing long tenn Arctic and

Antarctic mission needs which will be leveraged to detennine resource requirements.

The Coast Guard will work with DHS and the Administration to request appropriations to

meet these mission requirements as appropriate. As the flfSt step toward providing

required resources for Arctic/Antarctic mission requirements, the Coast Guard will

continue 10 work with DHS and the Administration to tTaru;fer budget authority for polar

icebreak.ing back to the Coast Guard consistent with Recommendation #1.

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program
 
 

Page 17
 
 
Subj: COMMENTS ON DHS OIG DRAFT REPORT: "THE 7501

COAST GUARD'S POLAR ICEBREAKER DEC 0 8 2010

MAINTENANCE, UPGRADE AND ACQUISTION

PROGRAM"

3. 'The Coast Guard provides points for factual clarification in the enclosed comment matrix.

The Coast Guard has no objection 10 public release ofthis report once factual clarification

conunents are incorporated.

4. If you have any questions, my point ofconl&ct is Mr. Mark Kulwicki at (202) 372-3533.

Alternatively, my Chief ofExtemal Coordination, CDR Todd Offun, can be reached at

(202) 372·3535.

•

Enclosure: (1) USCG Comment Matrix

Copy: CG-5, CG-7, CO·55

2

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program
 
 

Page 18
 
 
Appendix C 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Brooke Bebow, Director 

Stephanie Christian, Audit Manager 

Michael Staver, Auditor-in-Charge 

Mary Davis-Williams, Auditor 

Brian Smythe, Program Analyst 

Brandon Landry, Program Analyst 

Rebecca Mogg, Program Analyst 

Lorinda Couch, Desk Officer 

Gary Crownover, Referencer 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program 
 

Page 19 
 
Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Respective Under Secretary 

United States Coast Guard Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program
 
 

Page 20
 
 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.