would seriously reduce their utility. If the patient and/or the child had died at sea aboard an inadequate DOE vessel, suite could have developed. year. I am afraid a very serious law I have made this point repeatedly over the last How long will Brookhaven National Laboratory be required to operate with a vessel that is inadequate and on oxcasionddangerous/ under existing sea states? The answer to question 2 and 3 is therefore clear. We do not and will not consider the Liktanur II adequate for the medical missions. referring to "modifications" of Liktanur II is unclear. Question 3, In my discussions with Roger Ray, I was informed that hold #3 was being considered as a new living area, I believe this area is currently the machine shop and tankage. Supposedly they could be moved elsewhere. That modification would in no way change the hull motion in normal winter seas. It would just allow more room for berthing the incapacitated scientific party. An additional rumor I heard is that the DOE is considering cutting the ship in two, and adding an ad- ditional 20' to the hull length. length by about 17%. This procedure would increase the current From an economic standpoint, this presents some very unpalatable alternatives. They are: 1) such a major hull modification is very costly and time consuming. I assume that both the time, and at least part of the labor and the material costs of this major alteration would be underwritten by DOE, escalating even further, the expense of this particular vessel, It seems analagous to leasing a Volkswagon beetle to use as an ambulance and then converting it into a limousine in the last third of its contract period, only to return the enhanced VW to its rightful owner. seriously question the wisdom of this option. I 2) I would assume that the elongated Liktanur II would cost more, both on the standard per annum rate om fae a, + CF Cis Cm plus the added fuel to push 17% greater wetted surface through the water