NOTES OF THE SOUTHERN ENGLAND RADIATION MONITORING GROUP MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 13TH MARCH 2003 AT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

Present

Alan Higgins, CEHTSO
Paul Williams, North Cornwall Council
Dr Ian Croudace, Southampton University
Monica Wilsch, Slough Borough Council
John Leech, Exeter City Council
Penny Austin, Bournemouth Borough Council

1. Apologies

Kate Bishop, West Wiltshire Council

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2002

The Minutes were agreed as a true record.

3. Matters Arising
1. External Funding

There was some discussion around the various pots that might be available for external funding but it was agreed that there were no resources available to speculate on what might be an unsuccessful bid. No further action on this issue.

2. Funding for Quality Assurance

Aletter from Keith Binfield at Rimnet was circulated. Keith was pursuing the question of funding for a quality assurance scheme and although he could give no commitment at this stage he had suggested that there was some possibility.

4. Sampling Programme
1. Update

All authorities who have not submitted samples the previous year:

Reading - they had resumed normal submission
South Oxford - they would start next week
Hillingdon - Monica will speak to Hillingdon who were looking at staffing sampling again
Kerrier - Paul will pursue this one
East Dorset - they intended to start submitting next week
Fareham - they had a problem with their collection box but this had now been resolved
Test Valley - although still keen on the scheme had only submitted two samples
Worthing - they were planning to withdraw

All those authorities who are recommencing, many as a result of staff changes should contact Ian Croudace if there are any training issues to be addressed.


2. Annual Report

This was now imminent and was likely to be available in about four weeks time. Three copies would be circulated to all authorities and the report will be placed on the SERMG website: www.sermg.org.uk

Alan undertook to find the press release that was used last year and update it and circulate it with the Minutes.

3. Argus Network

There were no new stations. There were 8 Argus 2000 stations presently. Bournemouth were replacing their old Argus station. Wokingham were offering their Argus 2000 station for sale. The University’s Argus had been down for some time as it had to be taken down from the roof for repairs. Of the remaining old Argus systems only Fareham’s was still working. Ian noted that he had the details of a fairly cheap monitor which just plugged into a PC if anybody was interested.

5. Emergency Response Manuals

There was a considerable discussion around the Emergency Response Manual. Some of the particular issues raised included:

* How did it fit into other emergency planning arrangements?
* The need for clarity about the objective of the process which seemed to be long-term monitoring of the after effects of an incident rather than the incident management process.
* The need to update the Cascade and exercise it and in particular to identify any weak links in the Cascade.
* The current climate on emergency planning meant that there was a greater emphasis on the potential for terrorist activity, possibly using radioactive material and that more resources were being put into emergency planning to deal with this type of potential incident.


Authorities would be encouraged to ensure their Emergency Planning Officers were aware of the Emergency Plans.

6. Future of SERMG

It was noted that the majority of the first tranche of authorities who were up for contract renewal in August 2002 had resigned and only 2 authorities, Poole and East Hampshire, had withdrawn. The next tranche of authorities was due to consider the issue for November and it was agreed that we should be contacting them around May time to raise the issue.

It was also noted that there were a number of authorities who had indicated that they might possibly be withdrawing at this time. These included Woking, Teignbridge, Worthing and Chiltern. There were also discussions ongoing amongst the Devon Local Authorities. It has to be emphasised that the stability and future of the SERMG scheme is dependent upon sufficient Local Authorities maintaining their involvement and interest in the scheme. Local Authorities that withdraw will find it extremely difficult to receive the sort of support that they currently receive from SERMG if they are involved in any specific incidents. Relying on adjacent authorities seems neither fair nor practical and is ultimately not sustainable.

It was felt that the Conference held last September had not attracted the right level of Officer who could make decisions on the future of the scheme and therefore the Conference would be focused on providing information in future. It was felt that we should make efforts to make contact with Emergency Planning Officers and Alan would determine whether or not there was a regular bulletin we could make use of.

7. RIMNET

Alan reported his discussions with Keith Binfield and also the fact the Rimnet 3 was due to be up and running in the late August. Information on this was promised but it was felt that the supply of information from Rimnet was not good and we ought to be flagging this up more strongly with Rimnet. It was also noted that supplying data was still a problem and although Keith had indicated that it was possible to supply the data in bulk the contact in this had not happened. Local Authorities were not being involved in Rimnet discussions. It was also felt that the Cascade for Local Authorities was not working particularly effectively. Alan would communicate this to Keith Binfield. ACTION: AMH

8. Website

The website address had already been provided and all were encouraged to look at the site which was very good. It was also possible for Local Authorities to make a link into the site if they so wished.

9. Date of the next meeting

This will be held in September / October.