6) Although I requested long-range program plans and costs from OECO and OHER (and, through them, from LLL and BNL} some weeks ago, this material has not yet been received or assimilated into an integrated program. 7) In the absence of such a comprehensive plan, we have utilizec existing 189 information and information from headquarters staff and from o~ “ laboratory staffs. 8) FY 78, The funding levels are actual for FY 77/and FY 79 and reflect requested levels for FY 80 and FY Ble with some expectation of additional activities. 9) Estimates beyond FY 8] are increased per inflation. The projected figures do NOT provide for a major expanded role for the MPML, either in terms of nonitoring/research or as a U.S./ Marshallese enclave, aS has been advocated by some. 10) This draft response has been prepared for your consideration. 11) Please inform Joe Deal of anycomments/corrections you may have. 12) Mr. Stone asked for this information by Tuesday, June 19, if possible, and no later than Thursday, June 21. 13) . Whatever we provide will be included as a tab to the position paper. 14) It was suggested that our submission may have a significant (limiting?) impact upon OMB view of this program. 15) The breakdown of the source of the budget figures is attached for your information. Bruce W. Wachholz, Ph.0. Office of Environment