|
MINUTES OF THE SOUTHERN ENGLAND RADIATION MONITORING GROUP MEETING HELD ON THE 19 JANUARY 2007 at READING TOWN HALL |
|
Present
Ian Croudace, University of Southampton IWC Guy Sharp, Bournemouth GS John Leach, Exeter City Council JL Monica Wilsch, Slough Borough Council MW Alan Higgins (Invited ex-officio) Sue Parr, Reading Borough Council SP
Paul Williams, North Cornwall District Council Civic Contingencies/Emergency Planners The Emergency Planner for Reading, Brett Dyson, is interested in monitoring for CRBN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) purposes and the "How Clean is Clean" issue. This would need Emergency Planners to get some consensus on involvement. Paul Anstey is positive about this. Action: KH will follow this up with Paul Anstey. EA Remit SP asked if this can link in with ELD? KH asked what funding Government would provide after an incident, how long for and what is the gap? Rimnet are interested in data, but so far there is no support for funding. Rimnet are funded by Defra and setting up Rimnet Phase 3 to further develop hardware. Monitoring stations and equipment are very expensive. KH added that there are several elements now - EA, CBRN and Rimnet so a strong argument needs to be built for lobbying. There is a change in Emergency Planners at Slough - less supportive than previous. Have been invited to seminars and happy for us to continue and would use data. It's useful to have liaison with IWC. EA want evidence before they'll take on a site contaminated by radiation. Current Membership No change, 23 Members. (Basingstoke and Deane and Havant have withdrawn) KH asked what has been done about this in the past. IWC said that arguments have been put forward but financial considerations have overridden these. Letters have been sent to Chief Executives. KH asked what level it has been made at and has it gone through political process. MW said that it may be at budget holder level. It's not a statutory duty so may be removed and often there's not an opportunity to justify. JL added that some LAs are not even able to do training. Many other groups are having similar difficulties e.g. LARNET relating to membership. To raise the profile we need to talk to other groups, maybe CIEH supported event. Do we need to take a radical look at the long term future of SERMG? The group then discussed holding a conference to explore some of these issues The focus of the Conference could be: KH said that we need to be clear about where the gap is and what added value the SERMG provides. IC said that SERMG is of more benefit to LA's than to DEFRA - Day 2 argument. Could also have a series of presentation from other players ending with a presentation on LA monitoring. Rimnet are under similar constraints so we need to go beyond them to Defra and the National Conference may be a good way to have this opportunity. Action: AH will try to find out who the relevant person would be. It was agreed that there needs to be a separate event and also a meeting face-to-face to understand issues and to be able to muster arguments for presentations. Action: KH will liaise with IWC/AH regarding lobbying. The event should be a national event, aimed at members and officers, to get Government sponsors. CIEH may sponsor/provide the venue. AH would be happy to speak. PH suggested contacting other groups about support, including other radiation monitoring groups, NFLA and maybe a representative from the nuclear sector. Actions: None. This is due in April. The size of the document hasn't been reduced. Data on a per authority basis could be done if required or individual reports could be done for each authority. It can be downloaded as a pdf file or could be presented as a word document. KH said that most non-scientific people will only read the summary and needs to be presented well, with reasons for doing the monitoring forwarded on. If it's going to the public, members and stakeholders it needs to be in plain English with a non technical summary. KH asked IWC to draft a new format and will ask the Communications Team at RBC to look over it. Action: IWC to produced a more condensed report and forward it to KH. Currently sampling monthly. The proposal to change to 6 monthly would maintain capability but reduce work by the LA. It could be spread over the year; Auth A in Jan, Auth B in Feb etc. There would be no change in lab fees and the LA would benefit as less time to collect samples. JL and GS said that they don't have a problem collecting monthly and MW added that there could be a problem with storing samples. SP added that she's happy with current sampling. Action: It was agreed to maintain existing sampling. If there are any difficulties collecting then please liaise with IWC. Dealt with under Matters Arising. None. Conference Planning Meeting - Thursday, 12 April 2007, Reading (delayed until May). |
| SERMG Home |