exposures that arise as a result of natural processes (and which may not be amenable to control), and those which arise as a result of human actions (and which are always amenable to control). 30 Line 839 Replace factors” by For consistency with lines Accepted Comment accepted. “social “societal factors” 243-245 and lines 499-500. 31 The use of the phrase network Comment not Comment not adopted. “the of exposure pathways from existing adopted sources” exemplifies the confusion Consistent with definition of associated with the use of the term ARPANSA RPS C-1. exposure” the meaning of “existing – the word existing when applied to a source is different from the meaning when applied to an exposure. 32 Line 853 pathway” is not defined in Accepted Comment accepted. “exposure this document. 33 Lines Defining a product or residue from Comment not Comment not adopted. the processing of minerals as a adopted natural source is confusing, because Consistent with definition of materials arise as a result of ARPANSA RPS C-1. human action, not natural processes 34 With the approach described in this Comment not Comment not adopted. General comment guide it is possible for members of adopted the public to receive higher doses Noted. from non-uranium-mining actions that from uranium mining. This makes no sense. 35 General Much of this document reads more Comment not Comment not adopted. like a code of practice than a safety adopted comment guide. Noted. 36 Che Doering Lines 24–44 Proposed new text Line 31 refers to Accepted Comment accepted. – Department of Change the bullet points to (a), (b) stated in (a) “…material the and (c), and the bullet dashes to (i), above…” Environment (ii), (iii), etc. and Energy –
exposures that arise as a result of natural processes (and which may not be amenable to control), and those which arise as a result of human actions (and which are always amenable to control). 30 Line 839 Replace “social factors” by “societal factors” For consistency with lines 243-245 and lines 499-500. Accepted Comment accepted. 31 The use of the phrase “the network of exposure pathways from existing sources” exemplifies the confusion associated with the use of the term “existing exposure” – the meaning of the word existing when applied to a source is different from the meaning when applied to an exposure. Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. Consistent with definition of ARPANSA RPS C-1. 32 Line 853 “exposure pathway” is not defined in this document. Accepted Comment accepted. 33 Lines Defining a product or residue from the processing of minerals as a natural source is confusing, because materials arise as a result of human action, not natural processes Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. Consistent with definition of ARPANSA RPS C-1. 34 General comment With the approach described in this guide it is possible for members of the public to receive higher doses from non-uranium-mining actions that from uranium mining. This makes no sense. Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. Noted. 35 General comment Much of this document reads more like a code of practice than a safety guide. Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. Noted. 36 Che Doering – Department of the Environment and Energy – Lines 24–44 Proposed new text Change the bullet points to (a), (b) and (c), and the bullet dashes to (i), (ii), (iii), etc. Line 31 refers to “…material stated in (a) above…” Accepted Comment accepted.