A couple of the document objectives are to provide guidance in the following areas: How reference levels assist emergency response management, How Optimisation can be applied in identifying protective measures at the planning stage, That being stated, I would suggest that a paragraph be added to reinforce, in a stronger matter, that since the impact of the incident may not solely be a radiological issue, there is an overarching need for the developers of the planning documents to actively engage the first responder community in addition to the other stakeholders. As first responders typically arrive first on the scene, their actions set the pathway for recovery from the incident. If the planning process does not incorporate the methods and protocols by which the original response entities engage the incident, then it becomes more difficult to change the path to recovery. Adding a paragraph would help in the document being useful to meet the the two objectives listed above. Section 4. Other than the obvious limitations on identifying and involving all relevant "existing exposure situation" stakeholders early on in the emergency preparedness planning process, the only issue is the how the ICRP "typical" reference level of 1 to 20 mSv in a year is interpreted by US EPA when revising the PAG manual or if they will continue to use optimization only for the long-term cleanup. QUESTION: Section 1.3.1 indicates that a complementary ICRP Publication, a TG report on rehabilitation, will be developed. Where can one obtain a copy of this document? The document was well thought out. It should prove to be a valuable resource to apply when planning for the protection of people during radiological incidents. Thank you for the chance to comment. Tom