89 



managed through the ARI account will support an NSF-wide competition for instru- 

 ments that are generally more expensive than those supported through other pro- 

 grams. The management plan for this Foundation-wide activity is in the develop- 

 ment phase but there will certainly be a high level of coordination across organiza- 

 tional units. 

 b: How did you determine the allocation of funds for instrumentation 



among the directorates? 



ANSWER: While funds for the centralized instrumentation program were budg- 

 eted across the NSF research directorates according to the directorates' relative 

 shares of the NSF budget, the funded allocations will be based on the quality of the 

 proposals received. 



REVIEW OF U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM 



QUESTION: The Congress asked the Administration to undertake a com- 

 prehensive policy review of the U.S. Antarctic program. Can you give the 

 Subcommittee some sense of your preliminary findings? Further, the FY 97 

 budget requests $25 million for the South Pole Safety project. What exactly 

 will this request provide? How important is this proposed investment? How 

 does it tie into the long term plans for South Pole Station's redevelopment? 



ANSWER: 

 Review of the U.S. Antarctic Program 



Responsibility for the review of the U.S. Antarctic program was given to the 

 NSTC Committee on Fundamental Science. The Committee completed its report and 

 forwarded it to Congress on April 26, 1996. 



The policy review concluded that essential elements of U.S. national and scientific 

 interests are well-served by continued involvement in scientific activity in the Ant- 

 arctic as carried out by the U.S. Antarctic Program. In particular, the Administra- 

 tion found that "maintaining an active and influential presence in Antarctica, in- 

 cluding year-round operation of South Pole Station, is essential to U.S. interests." 

 The influential presence of the U.S. in Antarctica helps maintain the existing state 

 of international peace and stability on the continent. The science carried out in Ant- 

 arctica, by researchers from 43 states, is of great interest and provides unique and 

 crucial information in several disciplines. The report concludes that present U.S. 

 policy and practice with respect to the USAP are well-justified. 



A major recommendation by the Committee was that an external panel should be 

 convened by NSF to explore options for sustaining the high level of USAP science 

 activity under realistic constrained funding levels. The panel should be free to ex- 

 amine a full range of infrastructure, management, and scientific options, including 

 reductions in scope commensurate with a range of budgetary scenarios. 



Additional specific findings include the following: 



• The National Science Foundation has implemented U.S. policy in an effective man- 



ner, especially by substantially improving environmental stewardship, by broad- 

 ening the science program, and by privatizing some operational elements of the 

 Program to reduce costs. 



• The USAP research program is of very high quality and of great interest to a broad 



scientific community. 



• At the current level of investment, the USAP is cost effective in advancing Amer- 



ican scientific and geopolitical objectives and, from a science perspective, sup- 

 ports the continuation of three stations with year-round presence. 



The USAP should give highest priority to correcting critical health, safety, and en- 

 vironmental issues at the current station at the South Pole. 

 South Pole Safety Project 



The existing research station at the South Pole has exceeded its designed dura- 

 tion. The station's general infrastructure has deteriorated, and it is increasingly 

 costly to maintain activities within acceptable risk bounds. The $25 million re- 

 quested for FY 1997 for the South Pole Safety Project would provide specific up- 

 grades to address critical shortcomings in the heavy equipment maintenance facility 

 and associated work shops, the power plant, and the fuel storage facilities: 



• Heavy Equipment Maintenance Facility and Shops ($7.96 million): Specific con- 



cerns to be addressed include (1) the absence of exhaust ventilation systems ca- 

 pable of maintaining hazardous airborne contaminants to within acceptable lev- 

 els, (2) lack of fire suppression systems in an area where presence of fuels, lu- 

 bricants and other flammable materials is required, and where ignition sources 

 are present, and (3) minimal facilities and equipment for working on the large, 

 heavy industrial vehicles used at South Pole Station. 



