Our Reference: 2017/01196
7 June 2018
Charlie Faulk
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx

Dear Mr Faulk,

Your Freedom of Information Request

I refer to your request of 3 April 2018 under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) seeking
access to a copy of documents in the following terms:

This is a freedom of information act request regarding the Technical Report Series No. 164: Review
of Radiofrequency Health Effects Research – Scientific Literature 2000 – 2012, which is published
on the ARPANSA website.
I am requesting an electronic copy of the meeting minutes for any meetings conducted which
discussed the above-mentioned report. This should include meetings which were specifically called
with regards to this report, and those where this report was an agenda item.

On 4 April 2018 you clarified your request to refer to the formal minutes of meetings which discussed
Technical Report Series No. 164: Review of Radiofrequency Health Effects Research – Scientific Literature
2000 – 2012 (either a purpose specific meeting or one where the Report was an official agenda item) and
that you only sought those portions of the minutes which specifically dealt with the Report.

I am an officer authorised under section 23 of the For FOI Act to make decisions with respect to
applications for access to documents under the FOI Act and this letter sets out my decision on your request.

Decision

I have identified nine documents relevant to your request and have decided to release the documents to
you in full. Material in the documents which is not relevant to the scope of your request has been edited
from the documents in accordance with section 22 of the FOI Act.

My reasons for making this decision are set out in Attachment A to this letter. At Attachment B is a
schedule setting out each identified document and detailing my decision in relation to each document.

I have enclosed extracts of the provisions of the FOI Act relevant to your request and my decision at
Attachment C to this letter.

619 Lower Plenty Road, Yal ambie VIC 3085
38–40 Urunga Parade, Miranda NSW 2228
xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
+61 3 9433 2211
PO Box 655, Miranda NSW 1490
arpansa.gov.au

+61 2 9541 8333

Review Rights

You are entitled to seek review of this decision.  Your rights in this regard are set out at Attachment D to
this letter.

You may also complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman about the way your request has been handled
and Attachment D also sets out your rights of complaint and how to exercise them.

Publication of information in accessed documents.

ARPANSA must publish information that has been released in response to each freedom of information
access request, subject to certain exceptions, in what is known as a “disclosure log”.

The disclosure log requirement does not apply to personal information about any person if it would be
unreasonable to publish the information or to information about the business, commercial, financial or
professional affairs of any person if publication of that information would be unreasonable.  ARPANSA is
not required to consult you on any decision to publish information that is released to you and the decision
to publish information is not subject to internal review by ARPANSA or the Australian Information
Commissioner. Any person can however, make a complaint to the Australian Information Commissioner
about how an agency handles an FOI request.

I advise you that the document that wil  be placed on the ARPANSA disclosure log wil  be the same as the
document released to you.

ARPANSA’s disclosure log can be found at http://www.arpansa.gov.au/AboutUs/disclosure.cfm.

Contacts

If you require clarification of any of the matters set out in this letter please contact Martin Reynolds on 03
9433 2349 or xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx.

Yours sincerely

Martin Reynolds
General Counsel
2 of 2

ATTACHMENT A – REASONS FOR DECISION

Material taken into account

In making my decision, I had regard to the fol owing:

•  The terms of your request;
•  The content of the documents to which you sought access;
•  Advice from ARPANSA officers with responsibility for matters relating to the documents to which you
sought access;
•  The relevant provisions of the FOI Act;
•  ARPANSA’s guidance material on the FOI Act, and
•  Guidelines on FOI, available on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner website.

Findings of fact and reasons for decision

Where the schedule of documents indicates an exemption claim has been applied to a document or part of
document, my findings of fact and reasons for deciding that the exemption provision applies to that
document or part of document are set out below.

Section 22 deletion of exempt matter or irrelevant material

Section 22 of the Act allows for the deletion of information which is either exempt or which is irrelevant to
the scope of the request

Section 22(1)(a) – material which is exempt or irrelevant

Where a decision is made to refuse access to a document on the ground that it is an exempt document or
that it contains irrelevant material, section 22 al ows an agency to make an edited copy of the document
with the exempt or irrelevant material deleted. You have been provided with such edited copies of
documents.  The schedule identifies the relevant section of the Act under which the material has been
deleted.

Minutes of relevant meetings covered many topics that did not fal  within the scope of the request.  In
accordance with the request only seeking those portions of the minutes which were within the scope of the
request, I find that material in the identified documents is irrelevant to the request and should be edited
from the released copy of the documents.
619 Lower Plenty Road, Yal ambie VIC 3085
38–40 Urunga Parade, Miranda NSW 2228
xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
+61 3 9433 2211
PO Box 655, Miranda NSW 1490
arpansa.gov.au

+61 2 9541 8333

ATTACHMENT B – SCHEDULE OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

Doc Document Title
Pages
Released Reason
No.
1
RHC Minutes November 2007
14
Edited
s22(1)(a)(ii)
2
RHC Minutes March 2010
15
Edited
s22(1)(a)(ii)
3
RHC Minutes July 2010
15
Edited
s22(1)(a)(ii)
4
RHC Minutes November 2010
7
Edited
s22(1)(a)(ii)
5
RHC Minutes November 2011
8
Edited
s22(1)(a)(ii)
6
Actions from RF Review meeting August 2012
1
Edited
s22(1)(a)(ii)
7
RHSAC Minutes August 2013
9
Edited
s22(1)(a)(ii)
8
RHC Summary Minutes November 2013
2
Edited
s22(1)(a)(ii)
9
RHS Minutes March 2014
9
Edited
s22(1)(a)(ii)

619 Lower Plenty Road, Yal ambie VIC 3085
38–40 Urunga Parade, Miranda NSW 2228
xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
+61 3 9433 2211
PO Box 655, Miranda NSW 1490
arpansa.gov.au

+61 2 9541 8333

ATTACHMENT C – RELEVANT FOI ACT PROVISIONS

11A Access to documents on request
Scope

(1)  This section applies if:

(a)  a request is made by a person, in accordance with subsection 15(2), to an agency or
Minister for access to:

(i)  a document of the agency; or

(ii)  an official document of the Minister; and

(b)  any charge that, under the regulations, is required to be paid before access is given has
been paid.

(2)  This section applies subject to this Act.
Note:
Other provisions of this Act are relevant to decisions about access to documents, for example the
following:
(a)  section 12 (documents otherwise available);
(b)  section 13 (documents in national institutions);
(c)  section 15A (personnel records);
(d)  section 22 (access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant matter deleted).
Mandatory access—general rule

(3)  The agency or Minister must give the person access to the document in accordance with this
Act, subject to this section.
Exemptions and conditional exemptions

(4)  The agency or Minister is not required by this Act to give the person access to the document at a
particular time if, at that time, the document is an exempt document.
Note:
Access may be given to an exempt document apart from under this Act, whether or not in response to a
request (see section 3A
(objects—information or documents otherwise accessible)).

(5)  The agency or Minister must give the person access to the document if it is conditionally
exempt at a particular time unless (in the circumstances) access to the document at that time
would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.
Note 1:
Division 3 of Part IV provides for when a document is conditionally exempt.
Note 2:
A conditionally exempt document is an exempt document if access to the document would, on balance, be
contrary to the public interest (see section 31B (exempt documents for the purposes of Part IV)).
Note 3:
Section 11B deals with when it is contrary to the public interest to give a person access to the document.

(6)  Despite subsection (5), the agency or Minister is not required to give access to the document at
a particular time if, at that time, the document is both:

(a)  a conditionally exempt document; and

(b)  an exempt document:

(i)  under Division 2 of Part IV (exemptions); or

(ii)  within the meaning of paragraph (b) or (c) of the definition of exempt document in
subsection 4(1).
619 Lower Plenty Road, Yal ambie VIC 3085
38–40 Urunga Parade, Miranda NSW 2228
xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
+61 3 9433 2211
PO Box 655, Miranda NSW 1490
arpansa.gov.au

+61 2 9541 8333

11C Publication of information in accessed documents
Scope

(1)  This section applies to information if an agency or Minister gives a person access to a document
under section 11A containing the information, except in the case of any of the following:

(a)  personal information about any person, if it would be unreasonable to publish the
information;

(b)  information about the business, commercial, financial or professional affairs of any
person, if it would be unreasonable to publish the information;

(c)  other information of a kind determined by the Information Commissioner under
subsection (2), if it would be unreasonable to publish the information;

(d)  any information, if it is not reasonably practicable to publish the information under this
section because of the extent of any modifications to a document (or documents)
necessary to delete information mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c).

(2)  The Information Commissioner may, by legislative instrument, make a determination for the
purposes of paragraph (1)(c).
Publication

(3)  The agency, or the Minister, must publish the information to members of the public generally on
a website by:

(a)  making the information available for downloading from the website; or

(b)  publishing on the website a link to another website, from which the information can be
downloaded; or

(c)  publishing on the website other details of how the information may be obtained.

22 Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant matter deleted
Scope
(1)  This section applies if:
a.  an agency or Minister decides:
(i)
to refuse to give access to an exempt document; or
(ii)
that to give access to a document would disclose information that would
reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request for access; and
b.   it is possible for the agency or Minister to prepare a copy (an edited copy) of the document,
modified by deletions, ensuring that:
(i)
access to the edited copy would be required to be given under section  11A
(access to documents on request); and
(ii)
the edited copy would not disclose any information that would reasonably be
regarded as irrelevant to the request; and
c.  it is reasonably practicable for the agency or Minister to prepare the edited copy, having
regard to:
(i)
the nature and extent of the modification; and
(ii)
the resources available to modify the document; and
d.  it is not apparent (from the request or from consultation with the applicant) that the applicant
would decline access to the edited copy.
Access to edited copy
(2)  The agency or Minister must:
a.  prepare the edited copy as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b); and
2 of 3

b.  give the applicant access to the edited copy.
Notice to applicant
(3)  The agency or Minister must give the applicant notice in writing:
a.  that the edited copy has been prepared; and
b.  of the grounds for the deletions; and
c.  if any matter deleted is exempt matter-that the matter deleted is exempt matter because of a
specified provision of this Act.
(4)  Section 26 (reasons for decision) does not apply to the decision to refuse access to the whole
document unless the applicant requests the agency or Minister to give the applicant a notice in
writing in accordance with that section.

(b)  disclose, or enable a person to ascertain, the existence or identity of a confidential source
of information, or the non-existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to
the enforcement or administration of the law; or

(c)  endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

(2)  A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably
be expected to:

(a)  prejudice the fair trial of a person or the impartial adjudication of a particular case;

(b)  disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing
with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would,
or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or
procedures; or

(c)  prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public
safety.

(2A)  For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a person is taken to be a confidential source of information
in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law if the person is receiving, or has
received, protection under a program conducted under the auspices of the Australian Federal
Police, or the police force of a State or Territory, for the protection of:

(a)  witnesses; or

(b)  people who, because of their relationship to, or association with, a witness need, or may
need, such protection; or

(c)  any other people who, for any other reason, need or may need, such protection.

(3)  In this section, law means law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.

3 of 3

ATTACHMENT D INTERNAL REVIEW OF DECISION BY ARPANSA

You have the right to apply for an internal review of this decision in accordance with Part VI of the Freedom
of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). If you make an application for review, the CEO of ARPANSA will appoint
an officer of ARPANSA to conduct a review and make a completely fresh decision on the merits of the case.

If you wish to exercise this review right, you must apply in writing for a review of the decision within 30
days of receipt of this letter. You do not have to pay any fees or proceeding charges for internal the review.
No particular form is required to apply for review although it is desirable to set out in the application the
grounds on which you consider that the decision should be changed.

The application for review of the decision should be sent to xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx or:
FOI & Privacy Officer
ARPANSA
619 Lower Plenty Road
YALLAMBIE VIC 3085

If you make an application for internal review and a decision is not made by us within 30 days of receiving
the application, the original decision will be deemed to be affirmed in accordance with section 54D of the
FOI Act and you will be entitled to make an application to the Information Commissioner in accordance
with sections 54L and 54M of the FOI Act. Similarly, if you are dissatisfied with ARPANSA’s decision on
internal review, you may also apply for review of this decision to the Information Commissioner.

Review of Decision by the Australian Information Commissioner (AIC)

You do not have to seek an internal review of the decision directly from ARPANSA. You may wish to seek a
review of the decision from the AIC. If so, you must apply in writing and you can lodge your application in a
number of ways.  More information is available on the AIC’s website at: https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-
of-information/foi-review-process.

Complaints to the AIC or the Commonwealth Ombudsman

You may complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the AIC concerning action taken by an agency in
the exercise of the powers or the performance of functions under the FOI Act. There is no fee for making a
complaint. The Ombudsman or the AIC wil  conduct a completely independent investigation of your
complaint.

You may complain to the Ombudsman either oral y, in person, on-line or in writing and to the AIC in writing
or by completing the on-line form.  Relevant addresses are:
Commonwealth Ombudsman
The Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 442
GPO Box 2999       OR      GPO Box 5218
CANBERRA ACT 2601.
Canberra ACT 2601          Sydney NSW 2001

Web: www.ombudsman.gov.au
Web:
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-
information/foi-complaints

619 Lower Plenty Road, Yal ambie VIC 3085
38–40 Urunga Parade, Miranda NSW 2228
xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
+61 3 9433 2211
PO Box 655, Miranda NSW 1490
arpansa.gov.au

+61 2 9541 8333

Irrelevant

Irrelevant
2.11  Discussion paper on a process for review of the RF Standard
8
Dr  Colin  Roy,  Manager  of  ARPANSA’s  NIR  Branch,  presented  a  paper  proposing  that  a
working  group  be  established  to  assess  whether  the  scientific  basis  underpinning  ARPANSA
NE 201
JU RPS  3  is  still  current  and  whether  the  derivation  of the  exposure  levels  in  the  RF  Standard  is
OI therefore still valid.  Dr Roy informed the Committee that it was now more than five years since
F the RF Standard was published and ARPANSA had received a number of queries as to whether
NDER the RF Standard is still current.   He advised the Committee that there had been several major
international  research  programs  and  reviews  and  that  the  final  report  of  the  13  country
Interphone Study was expected in early 2008.

RPANSA U
Y A Dr  Roy  proposed  that  a  small  working  group,  comprising  ARPANSA  staff  and  a  couple  of
external  members,  be  established  to  undertake  a  preliminary  assessment  of  the  current  science
SED B relevant to RPS 3.  The Committee agreed to this proposal and asked for a report to be prepared
EA for  the  March  2008  RHC  meeting  recommending  whether  a  formal  review  of  RPS  3  be
REL undertaken.  The timing of the report would, however, depend on the report of the Interphone
Study.
Irrelevant
Radiation Health Committee
Page 8 of 14
Final minutes of 21 - 22 November 2007 meeting

Irrelevant

Irrelevant
2.4  RPS  3,  RF  Exposure  Standard  –  review  of  current  literature  and  updated  risk
assessment
Dr Lindsay Martin, Acting Director of ARPANSA’s Non-Ionizing Radiation Branch, informed
the  Committee  of  the  progress  on  ARPANSA’s  review  of  the 8s cientific  literature  related  to
radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and health.  ARPANSA had commenced
NE 201
cataloguing and collecting copies of relevant primary research papers published since 2000 and
had completed an internal review of the 167 epidemiological research papers.  Dr Martin advised
FOI JU
the Committee that ARPANSA intended to establish a small working group of experts to assess
the collected literature, including the results of the multinational Interphone study.  The working
group would report to RHC in late 2010 or early 2011 on the results of the review and also on
whether there will be a need to review or modify the Annexes in RPS 3.  Dr Martin noted that
regardless  of the working  group’s  recommendation, it was expected that the annexes of RPS 3
dealing with the scientific research would
SED BY ARPANSA UNDER
be updated to include 2000 - 2010 research and may
be  published  separately,  or  incorporated  into  a  revised  RPS  3  if  this  was  deemed  necessary.
RELEA
Dr Martin  mentioned  that  the  International  Agency  for  Research  on  Cancer  (IARC)  will  be
informing Member States of the Interphone study a week before publication and that the World
Health  Organisation  (WHO)  will  publish  a  monograph  on  RF  as  part  of  the  Environmental
Health Criteria publication series.

Radiation Health Committee
Page 7 of 15
Final minutes of 24 - 25 March 2010 meeting

RELEASED BY ARPANSA UNDER FOI JUNE 2018
The Committee endorsed the proposed plan of action and asked Dr Martin to seek further
information on the “Radio Frequency Assisted Lipoplasty” procedure, which will be a session of
the COSMETEX Conference to be held in Adelaide on 21-24 April 2010.
Irrelevant
Radiation Health Committee
Page 8 of 15
Final minutes of 24 - 25 March 2010 meeting

Irrelevant

Irrelevant
3.4 RPS 3, RF Exposure Standard – update on assessment of current science
Dr Lindsay Martin and Dr Ken Karipidis, of ARPANSA’s NIR Branch, joined the meeting for
discussion of this item. The Committee noted the information paper advising of the progress of,
Radiation Health Committee
Page 11 of 15
Final minutes of 14 - 15 July 2010 meeting
RELEASED BY ARPANSA UNDER FOI JUNE 2018

and  future  actions  in  relation  to,  ARPANSA’s  review  of  the  scientific  literature  related  to
radiofrequency  (RF)  electromagnetic  radiation  (EMR)  and  health,  including  the  results  of  the
multinational Interphone Study.  Dr Larsson informed the Committee that the ARPANSA media
release  on  the  Interphone  Study  continued  to  inform  people  on  how  to  reduce  their  exposures
and recommended that children not use mobile phones excessively.  He noted that the results of
the Interphone Study were conclusi
RELEASED BY ARPANSA UNDER FOI JUNE 2018
ve and reassuring as they did not establish an increased risk
of  brain  cancer  with  normal  mobile  phone  use.    He  also  noted  that  there  was  a  lack  of
information concerning the long-term use of mobile phones.
Irrelevant
Radiation Health Committee
Page 12 of 15
Final minutes of 14 - 15 July 2010 meeting

Irrelevant

Irrelevant
8
NE 201
JUOI F
3.3 RPS 3, RF Exposure Standard – update on assessment of current science
NDER
The Committee noted the information paper advising of the progress of, and future actions in
relation to, ARPANSA’s review of the scientific literature related to radiofrequency (RF)
electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and health.
RPANSA U
Irrelevant
Y A
SED B
EA
REL
Radiation Health Committee
Page 7 of 7
Final minutes of 11 November 2010 meeting

Irrelevant

Irrelevant
2.9  Update on RF Literature Review
Dr Lindsay Martin, ARPANSA Radiation Health Services Bra
8  nch, updated the Committee on
the progress on ARPANSA’s review of the scientific literature related to radiofrequency (RF)
NE 201
electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and health.  He informed the Committee that ARPANSA had
catalogued papers on RF and health that have been publi
FOI JU shed since the year 2000 and now a
small panel of experts was required to assist in finalising the review of the epidemiological and
human  provocation  literature.    International  reviews  would  be  looked  at  to  ensure  they  were
not contradictory.  Dr Martin asked the Committee to consider the proposed terms of reference
for the small expert panel.

The Committee agreed to the propoSED BY ARPANSA UNDER
sed terms of reference for establishing the panel to assess
the collected literature and then report to the RHC on whether there will be a need to review or
RELEA
modify  the  annexes  in  ARPANSA  RPS  3,  Radiation  Protection  Standard  for  Maximum
Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields - 3 kHz to 300 GHz (2002).  The panel was expected
to finalise its report by 30 June 2012.
Irrelevant
Radiation Health Committee
Page 6 of 8
Final minutes of 9 November 2011 meeting

Irrelevant

Irrelevant
8.2. ARPANSA RF literature review – presentation on draft report
Dr Solomon briefed Council on the background and findings of the RF literature review that had been
completed by a small expert working group and thanked all the experts who had been involved in the
review.
The outcomes of the expert review have been considered by ARPANSA and a strategy for addressing
the  review  and  updating  the  Radiation  Protection  Series  No.  3  Radiation  Protection  Standard  for
Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields – 3 kHz to 300 GHz (2002) (RPS3) is now being
developed.  ARPANSA’s key findings were:
  The basic restrictions specified in RPS 3 are still valid for known effects;
  Advances in numerical dosimetry have demonstrated that the reference levels in certain situations
are not as conservative as previously thought (for children/short statur
8 ed adults in some frequency
ranges). This is important in terms of telecommunications (far field – base station RF); and
  There is no immediate urgency to change RPS 3 but ARPANSA should consider the strategy for
how these changes are addressed in the future, in line with the current revision being undertaken by
ICNIRP.
FOI JUNE 201
Dr Ken Karipidis briefed Council on technical content of the review of epidemiological studies.  Annex
3  of  RPS  3  is  a  review  of  literature  up  to  the  year  2000.  This  current  review  examined  studies  from
2000 – 2012 and demonstrated there is still no conclusive evidence of a link between RF exposure and
cancers.
Council  discussed  the  presentations  and  agreed  that health  protection needs  to  be  evidence  based  and
closely  following  ICNIRP  guidance
SED BY ARPANSA UNDER
may  be  the  best  way  to  have  international  best  practice  reflected
into the  Australia  context.   Council  noted  the  follow up  consultation  that  ARPANSA  must  undertake
RELEA
with  key  stakeholders  prior  to  publishing  the  outcomes  of  the  review  on  the  website  and  agreed  that
when  the  review  is  published  the  accompanying  public  messaging  needs  to  be  very  clear,  as  does
ARPANSA’s  strategy  for  dealing  with  the  outcomes  of  the  review  and  how  to  reflect  the  update  of
ICNIRP in to RPS 3 as efficiently as possible.
Dr Larsson agreed the strategy will be very important and acknowledged there will be an expectation
that the reference levels should be addressed quickly following its release.
Council  agreed  the  Chair  should  write  to  the  CEO  recommending  further  discussion  between
ARPANSA, the DoHA and other key agencies to ensure a strategic approach is developed for dealing
with the public concerns and prioritising research agendas related to RF and EMR exposures.  Council
agreed that adoption of the ICNIRP recommendations in an Australian context is important and that the
priority  in  the  short  term  is  to  deal  with  the  update  of  the  reference  levels  for  children/short  statured
persons in RPS 3.
Radiation Health & Safety Advisory Council
Minutes of 8-9 August 2013

Date: 30 September 2013

Page 6 of 9

RELEASED BY ARPANSA UNDER FOI JUNE 2018
Ms Kidziak thanked all the presenters for their respective contributions and overview of the status of
the RF and EMR research and the review of RPS 3.
Irrelevant
Radiation Health & Safety Advisory Council
Minutes of 8-9 August 2013

Date: 30 September 2013

Page 7 of 9

Irrelevant

Irrelevant
8
NE 201
JUOI F
Radiofrequency literature review
NDER
The RF Literature Review Report has been completed. Adequate protection of the public is still
provided by RPS3 but its complexity was noted. The Committee supported revision of the standard to
a more simplified form.
RPANSA U
Irrelevant
Y A
SED B
EA
REL
RHC Meeting Summary
13 November 2013
Page 2 of 2

Irrelevant

Irrelevant

D
ME
R
FI
N Item 3.9
RF Research Report

CO The Committee noted the draft report and acknowledged the contribution of the experts who worked on
it.
The report concludes that RPS3 continues to provide an adequate l
8  evel of protection to the public
however  the  quantum of the safety factor has been reduced on the basis of improved knowledge.  A
NE 201
proposal to revise RPS3 will be put  to the next meeting. Th e
JU Committee requested that, given his
expertise in the area, Dr Andrew Kerans be approached to un Fder
OI take the role of project manager for the
revision project.
This subject is of significant public interest and explanatory material wil  be released with the RF Research
Report later in March.
ACTION  20:  Approach  Dr  Kerans to undertaD BY ARPANSA UNDER
SEke the role of Project Manager for the revision of RPS3
[KB/ARPANSA (NU)]
EA
REL
ACTION 21: Prepare PDP including a 21 Step Workplan for revision of RPS3 for June meeting [ARPANSA
(RHS)]

RHC Minutes

Page 8 of 9
5 March 2014

Irrelevant

Document Outline