90 



• Power Plant ($12.49 million): The current power plant is operating at capacity, re- 



sulting in brown-outs and restricted operations. The existing generators are rel- 

 atively fuel inefficient, the 20-25 year old power plant structure is severely over- 

 crowded, and power distribution systems are past their intended life. The re- 

 quested funds will provide new power plant structure, new generators, renew- 

 able energy equipment, water treatment and storage, and associated equipment. 



• Fuel Storage Facilities ($4.55 million): Storage for up to 300,000 gallons of fuel is 



required at the South Pole. Fuel is currently stored in fuel bladders that have 

 risk of leakage or major spills. Steel storage tanks are needed to meet minimum 

 environmental standards. The fuel storage upgrade includes 10,000-gallon steel 

 tanks with secondary containment for all tanks and fuel piping and pumping 

 system. Their capacity will sustain the station for the eight months of winter 

 isolation and through a possible emergency disruption to the annual fuel resup- 

 ply. 

 The project costs include materials, labor, logistics for transportation of all mate- 

 rial and personnel to the South Pole, construction support, inspection, and removal 

 of construction debris. The location at the South Pole requires significant lead time 

 for construction projects because of the lengthy procurement cycle, the shipping con- 

 straints (one vessel per year to deliver materials), and the shortened period for con- 

 struction at the South Pole (100 days per year). All three upgrades will be com- 

 pleted by 2002. 



The proposed investment is critical to address current safety, health, and environ- 

 mental hazards. All three components of this request are "stand-alone," that is, they 

 are independent of future decisions made on the station at the South Pole. 



TRANSFER OF LOGISTICAL SUPPORT TO AIR NATIONAL GUARD 



QUESTION: Please update the Subcommittee on the plans to transfer 

 logistical support from the Navy to the Air National Guard. What are the 

 rationale and advantages that accrue with the transfer? What is the cur- 

 rent status of that effort and what is the current timeline NSF and DOD 

 are working under to complete this transition? 



ANSWER: NSF, the Navy, and the Air National Guard have developed a three- 

 year transition to phase-in support by the Air National Guard and phase-out Navy's 

 support. The Navy will be completely withdrawn by March 31, 1999. 



The transition allows the Air National Guard to hire additional personnel — 56 in 

 FY 96; 115 in FY 97; and 68 in FY 98. NSF will provide $1.5 million in FY 96 for 

 reimbursement of the first increment of transition costs. This will support the initial 

 56 personnel to the 109th airlift wing. 



Appropriate memoranda of understanding for operation and maintenance of NSF's 

 aircraft are being drafted, and the transition plan is being implemented. Many ad- 

 vantages result from the fact that the Air National Guard has a military mission 

 in the Arctic in the Northern Hemisphere summer. Consolidation of the nation's 

 fleet of ski-equipped C-130 aircraft will more effectively support Arctic and Antarctic 

 logistics needs. Consolidation will result in more efficient operations and reduced 

 costs: fewer total aircraft; fewer personnel; reduced training and maintenance costs. 



REPLACEMENT OF SOUTH POLE STATION 



QUESTION: NSF has been studying options for replacement of the U.S. 

 Antarctic Program's South Pole Station. The current budget request in- 

 cludes funding for upgrades to certain facilities at the station. Is the pro- 

 posed construction consistent with plans for an eventual rebuild of the sta- 

 tion, or does it involve temporary fixes to facilities which will be replaced 

 by a new station? What is the status of plans for rebuilding the station? 



ANSWER: The proposed South Pole Safety Project reflects NSF priority for en- 

 suring that our facilities at the South Pole are, to the extent possible, free of safety, 

 health, or environmental hazards. All three components of this request are "stand- 

 alone," that is, they are independent of future decisions made on the station at the 

 South Pole. They are not temporary fixes, nor would they be replaced by a new sta- 

 tion. 



The current station is nearing the end of its useful life. Planning for rebuilding 

 the station has been ongoing for over five years. A range of alternatives has been 

 considered for station size and science support. One alternative examined for replac- 

 ing the present station, while retaining cost-effective options for further expansion, 

 costed-out at $181 million. Additional planning will take place based on the rec- 

 ommendation of the NSTC report for further cost-benefit analysis that examines the 



