AGENDA ITEM 16
BOROUGH OF POOLE
CABINET
12 DECEMBER 2005
MERCURY EMISSIONS LEGISLATION – POOLE CREMATORIUM: REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING LEISURE AND RECREATION)
1.PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
To consider the recommendations of the Environment Overview Group.
2.DECISION REQUIRED
i)That Cabinet delegate to the Head of Leisure Services in consultation with the Heads of Financial and Legal and Democratic Services and the Portfolio Holder for Environment (including Leisure and Recreation), the setting of an introduction of an environmental levy to cover the cost of abating mercury pollution in line with Government guidelines;
ii)Request the Head of Leisure Services to draw up an Action Plan and Business Case to meet the Government’s requirements within a timescale allowed by installing filtration equipment, including funding and cost projections.
3.BACKGROUND/INFORMATION
3.1The Environment Overview Group, at its Meeting on 1 December 2005 considered a report of the Head of Leisure Services relating to Mercury Emissions Legislation with regard to Poole’s Crematorium.
3.2The Overview Group considered the attached report and unanimously supported the recommendations.
3.3The Overview Group noted that the Government was requiring all Crematoria to reduce mercury emissions and in order to meet the costs of installing the necessary equipment had recommended that the polluter should pay through increased Cremation fees.
3.4The implications of installing mercury abatment equipment, its costs and the funding proposals are outlined at paragraph 4 of the attached report.
3.5The Overview Group agreed that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services should be a consultee in the proposed delegation to the Head of Leisure Services with regard to the setting and introduction of an environmental levy to cover the cost of abating mercury pollution as reflected in the Decisions Required section.
Councillor Don Collier
Portfolio Holder for Environmental Areas (including Leisure and Recreation)
BOROUGH OF POOLE
ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW GROUP
1 DECEMBER 2005
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF LEISURE SERVICES
MERCURY EMISSIONS LEGISLATION – POOLE CREMATORIUM
1 / Purpose and Policy Context1.1 / To determine the Council’s position on mercury abatement at Poole Crematorium and associated costs.
1.2 / Central government is requiring all crematoria to reduce mercury emissions and in order to meet the costs of installing the necessary equipment have recommended that the polluter should pay through increased cremation fees.
2 / Decision Required
2.1 / Members are recommended to:
2.1.1 / Note that the Head of Leisure Services will notify the Local Authority Regulator by the required date of 31 December 2005 of the Council’s intention to achieve a minimum 50% abatement of mercury at Poole Crematorium by 31 December 2012 by the installation of filtration equipment to remove mercury from the cremator emissions.
2.1.2 / Note the officer recommendation to not pursue the ‘CAMEO’ scheme in 4.4 in accordance with legal and financial advice.
2.1.3 / Request the Head of Leisure Services to develop an action plan and business case to meet the Government’s requirements within the timescale allowed, by installing filtration equipment, including costs and funding projections.
2.1.4 / Recommend that Cabinet delegate to Head of Leisure Services in consultation with Head of Financial Services and Portfolio Holder for the Environment, the setting and introduction of an environmental levy to cover the costs of abating mercury pollution in line with Government guidance.
3 / Information
3.1 / Over the past five years, mercury emission into the atmosphere caused by dental fillings has been under investigation by the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). That department has now assessed that about 16 per cent of mercury emissions in the UK is from crematoria, primarily from dental amalgam. Crematoria are currently subject to pollution control under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 PG5/2(91) and PG5/2(95). A further guidance note PG5/2(04) has now been issued which changes the emission limits and monitoring equipment requirements. The main changes include the arrestment of mercury and dioxins.
3.2 / Defra has now advised that all local authorities that run cremation services have until 31 December 2005 to notify their Local Authority Regulator how they intend to meet DEFRA’s deadlines for compliance (relevant dates shown in DEFRA’s briefing note attached to this report).
3.3 / Costs across the country for cremation are already increasing as cremation authorities prepare to meet the financial implications of installing the necessary mercury abatement equipment.
3.4 / Whilst the statutory guidance requires a national 50% reduction in emissions by 2012 it should be noted that the government has recently been considering a commitment to 100% cessation by the year 2020.
3.5 / For normal crematoria the only way to achieve abatement is to install filtration equipment designed to remove the emissions from the cremators. The alternative is the forced closure of crematoria which do not comply.
3.6 / The requirement is for a 50% reduction in mercury emissions at crematoria nationwide by 31 December 2012. If not enough crematoria provide satisfactory evidence to Defra that they plan to install abatement equipment by 31 December 2012 it is probable that Defra will make it mandatory for all crematoria to install abatement plants.
4 / Implications Of Installing Mercury Abatement
4.1 / Infrastructure
4.1.1 / Poole Crematorium has three cremators, which were installed in 2000 and are fully EPA compliant and will support mercury abatement plant without any significant adjustments. Due to installing state of the art equipment at the time and subsequently ensuring a carefully planned maintenance programme, along with day to day management by a skilled cremator operator it is anticipated that these cremators should be operational for a considerable number of years.
The crematory at Poole Crematorium is sufficient in size to accommodate the bulky abatement equipment however, in addition to the capital costs of the plant, there will be a need for some additional construction works.
4.2 / Cost of abatement
4.2.1 / Significant capital expenditure will be necessary to achieve the requirements of the guidance note PG5/2(04). As with the initial EPA 1990 it is likely that some associated construction work will be necessary.
The cost of filtration plant for all three cremators is likely to be in the region of £425,000, which will achieve 100% abatement of the three existing cremators and is therefore the highest cost option.
The associated construction work has been initially estimated as being in the region of £75,000, making a total cost of £500,000.
To achieve the minimum abatement required (50%) would mean applying the equipment to only two out of three of the cremators. The amount of cost reduction for this option is limited and the risk of the Government changing the requirements to 100% is high. Further work is being carried out to cost installing filtration equipment for a third cremator at a later date. The decision concerning two or three cremators is not necessary at this stage and can be deferred until further information is available.
4.3 / Funding
4.3.1 / The likely cost of cremator upgrading works to achieve the required abatement nationwide is around £300m. Increases in the cremation fee are inevitable and a nationwide ‘environmental levy’ of £50-£75 per cremation seems likely.
Initial desktop research has indicated that the following crematoria have authorized an increase in their fees from April 2006 to meet the abatement targets:
Harrogate – phasing a 30% environment levy over three years from April 2006
Wolverhampton - £40 levy from April 2006
Tendring - £44 surcharge from April 2006
North Devon – 23% increase in fees from April 2006
Stockport – 17% increase in fees from April 2006
4.3.2 / An action plan for the works is being developed and it will soon be necessary to book the technical works early to avoid capacity problems with the limited numbers of companies available.
Depending on the timing of the works, the Council can choose to introduce an environmental levy in addition to the existing cremation fee. This levy would be separate from the cremation fee (currently £310) and the monies from the levy held in a reserve to offset the anticipated expenditure which will be incurred to meet the requirements of PG5/2(04).
For information 2004/5 cremation fees locally were: Poole - £310; Salisbury - £330; Bournemouth - £348; Weymouth - £355; Southampton - £365
This shows that neighbouring crematoria fees are already in excess of Poole’s and they are also set to increase due to the same environmental pressure.
Other authorities are actively considering introducing a levy in the region of £40 to £50 or more.
4.4 / CAMEO Alternative
4.4.1 / Members should also be aware of an alternative proposal to assist crematoria in funding abatement works. The Federation of Burial and Cremation Authorities and Cremation Society have together devised a burden sharing scheme CAMEO (Crematoria Abatement of Mercury Emissions Organisation) which is designed to spread the cost burden over the duration of the upgrading period. This complex scheme identifies a ‘per cremation’ cost/income for those participating in the scheme with payments made by non-abating crematoria to the CAMEO. This money then being redistributed to crematoria who abate.
Conversely The Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management (ICCM) has expressed some concerns over the legality of the CAMEO scheme from its members and has sought Counsel’s advice on burden sharing. This advice endorsed the Institute’s concerns although it should be noted that this is Counsel’s opinion sought on behalf of ICCM membership.
Officers from Leisure Services have met with colleagues in Financial Services and Legal Services to consider whether this scheme was a feasible and viable option to taking an independent approach. Officers concluded:
a)the scheme was complex and relied on too many variables (particularly the number of crematoria that would need to participate to make it viable)
b)participation in the scheme could therefore potentially put the Authority at financial and compliance risk
c)participation in the scheme would still require an environmental charge to be levied (which would then be passed to CAMEO) and therefore the public would not benefit financially.
d)The scheme could be perceived attractive by those crematoria who did not have enough room to install abatement equipment or who lacked the necessary funding to do the work.
Officers concluded that the scheme should not be pursued as an alternative to funding the abatement works independently.
4.5 / Staffing
4.5.1 / Whilst there may be some minor changes in the working arrangements, these will not be significant and no additional staff will be required to meet the requirements of PG5/2(04).
4.6 / Legal
4.6.1 / The Council must inform the Local Authority Regulator by no later than 31 December 2005 of its intention to install mercury abatement by 31 December 2012.
5 / Conclusion
5.1 / By implementing an environmental levy on cremation fees the Council will be able to meet the costs of installing the mercury abatement plant and, due to the existing equipment and infrastructure of Poole Crematorium, the Council could achieve either the minimum 50% or the full 100% abatement by 2012, the later avoiding any future works to meet new government targets should they be imposed.
5.2 / At this stage the Council only has to notify the Local Authority Regulator of its intention to achieve the 50% abatement by 31 December 2012. In order to meet the requirements of PG5/2(04) by the prescribed date, a plan will be required to programme the work to achieve compliance. This will be produced in-house and reported to a future meeting of the Environment Overview Group for consideration.
5.3 / An environmental levy charge would allow the Council to complete the necessary works without further funding requirements.
CLIVE SMITH
HEAD OF LEISURE SERVICES
Contact Officers:
Jayne Taylor, Business Manager (01202) 261311
Background Papers:
Defra Briefing Note – 15 September 2005
1