on factors other than the activity concentrations of those radionuclides present, measurement of activity concentrations does not address the problems mentioned in earlier comments. 22 Lines Proposed new text The sentence as written in Accepted Comment accepted. The remediation process should take the draft is incomplete. into account the relevant aspects of planned exposure situations as described in the Planned Exposure Code, RPS C-1. 23 The requirements specified in lines Comment not Comment not adopted. Section 4.4 508-509 and 510-512 are adopted contradictory. Guide is aligned with GSR Part 3. 24 Section 4.4 The requirements in lines 526-528 Comment not Comment not adopted. and 529-531 are also contradictory adopted is aligned with GSR Part 3. 25 Lines See earlier comments about Comment not Comment not adopted. consistency. (Comment 8 and adopted Comment 16) Guide is aligned with GSR Part 3. 26 ANNEX A: Proposed new text Comment not Comment not adopted. Lines Radionuclides of natural origin in adopted bulk material is aligned with GSR Part 3. line of table 27 Line 775 Exemption should also take into Comment not Comment not adopted. account the likelihood that the adopted conditions that justify the exemption Consistent with definition of will remain valid under all reasonably ARPANSA RPS C-1. foreseeable circumstances. 28 Line 791 The graded approach should be Comment not Comment not adopted. based simply on the level of risk, adopted regardless of whether there is a loss Consistent with ARPANSA F-1. of control. 29 Lines This definition is of natural Comment not Comment not adopted. background confusing, because it adopted makes no distinction between Guide is aligned with GSR Part 3.
on factors other than the activity concentrations of those radionuclides present, measurement of activity concentrations does not address the problems mentioned in earlier comments. 22 Lines Proposed new text The remediation process should take into account the relevant aspects of planned exposure situations as described in the Planned Exposure Code, RPS C-1. The sentence as written in the draft is incomplete. Accepted Comment accepted. 23 Section 4.4 The requirements specified in lines 508-509 and 510-512 are contradictory. Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. Guide is aligned with GSR Part 3. 24 Section 4.4 The requirements in lines 526-528 and 529-531 are also contradictory Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. is aligned with GSR Part 3. 25 Lines See earlier comments about consistency. (Comment 8 and Comment 16) Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. Guide is aligned with GSR Part 3. 26 ANNEX A: Lines line of table Proposed new text Radionuclides of natural origin in bulk material Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. is aligned with GSR Part 3. 27 Line 775 Exemption should also take into account the likelihood that the conditions that justify the exemption will remain valid under all reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. Consistent with definition of ARPANSA RPS C-1. 28 Line 791 The graded approach should be based simply on the level of risk, regardless of whether there is a loss of control. Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. Consistent with ARPANSA F-1. 29 Lines This definition is of natural background confusing, because it makes no distinction between Comment not adopted Comment not adopted. Guide is aligned with GSR Part 3.
rpsg-2_public-consultation-comments.docx