No C 168/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 90 
APPENDIX 2 
The following members, present or represented, voted in favour of the opinion: 
ARENA, ARETS, BAGLIANO, BAZIANAS, BEALE, BELTRAMI, BERGER, BERNS, BLESER, BOISSEREE, 
BREDIMA SAVOPOULOU, BREYIANNIS, BRIGANTI, BROICHER, CEYRAC, COYLE, van DAM, DE 
TAVERNIER, DONCK, DOS SANTOS, EULEN, FORGAS, GARCIA MORALES, GERMOZZI, 
GEUENICH, GIACOMELLI, GOMEZ MARTINEZ, GREEN, HAGEN, HANCOCK, JESUS SEQUEIRA, 
KAARIS, KAZAZIS, KELLY, KENNA, KIRCHFELD, KITSIOS, KROGER, LAPPAS, LAUR, LOW, 
LUSTENHOUWER, MAINETTI, MARVIER, MORALES, MUHR, MULLER, NIELSEN Bent., NIER-
HAUS, NOORDWAL, PARDON, PEARSON, PELLETIER Charles, PETERSEN, PROUMENS, ROBIN­
SON, ROLAO GONCALVES, ROMOLI, ROSEINGRAVE, SHADE-POULSEN, SCHMITZ, SILVA, 
SOLARI, TUKKER, VALLEJO CALDERON, VASSILARAS, VELASCO MANCEBO, VIDAL, WICK, 
WITHWORTH 
The following members, present or represented voted against the opinion: 
BERNASCONI, CAVAZZUTI, ALVES CONDE, CORELL AYORA, FREEMAN, LIVERANI, MACHADO 
VON TSCHUSI, MERCIER, MURPHY, ORSI, STAEDELIN, STRAUSS, VERCELLINO, WILLIAMS 
The following members, present or represented abstained: 
AMATO, ASPINALL, ATAIDE FERREIRA, BORDES-PAGES, BOS, Vasco CAL, CALVET CHAMBON, 
CHRISTIE, DELLA CROCE, DRAGO, DRILLEAUD, van EEKERT, ELSTNER, ETTY, FLATHER, 
GREDAL, HILKENS, HOUTHUYS, HORSKEN, JENKINS, de KNEGT, LAKA MARTIN, MADDOCKS, 
MARGOT, MORELAND, MOURGUES, NIEUWENHUIZE, de NORMANN, RAMAEKERS, ROUZIER, 
SALMON, SCHOEPGES, SMITH L.J., STORIE-PUGH, TAMLIN. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning municipal waste water 
treatment (*) 
(90/C 168/16) 
On 23 November 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
pursuant to Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was 
responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 April 
1990. The rapporteur was Mr Boisseree. 
At its 276th plenary session (meeting of 25 April 1990), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following opinion: 
I. Summary of the Commission proposal 
Following the resolution adopted at the European Summit 
in Hanover, the Environment Council decided at its 
28 June 1988 meeting to call on the Commission to propose 
measures for the treatment of waste water collected in and 
discharged from urban sewage plants (municipal waste 
water). The aim of this proposal is to ensure that the quality 
of ground and surface water throughout Europe complies 
with European standards. These quality requirements will 
provide a basis for drinking water supplies and help to 
maintain the ecological balance. 
The proposal seeks to achieve this aim by laying down 
Community rules with regard to: 
(!) OJ No C 1, 4. 1. 1990, p. 20. — requirements for the collection and treatment of 
municipal sewage, 
— control of discharges of sludge, 
— control of comparable industrial waste water, 
— phasing-out of disposal of sludge at sea, 
— administrative arrangements: creation of a regulatory 
committee, implementation of joint national program­
mes, public access to information, training of skilled 
staff. 
II. General comments on the proposal 
1. The proposed treatment of municipal waste water 
throughout Europe is welcomed on environmental protec­
tion grounds. 
10. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 168/37 
The proposal is compatible with the Fourth Action 
Programme on the Environment in which the Commission 
stated its intention of improving the cleanliness of inland 
and coastal waters. The Economic and Social Committee 
gave its explicit approval at the time to this Action 
Programme. 
Without these present measures, water resources in large 
areas of the Community, including its coastal and 
territorial waters, might suffer an ecological disaster and 
there might be a collapse of drinking water supplies. 
Waste water treatment measures, however, also need to be 
accompanied by guarantees of adequate fresh water 
resources (protection of catchment areas, the development 
of new resources, and their designation as protected areas). 
2. The Committee lends its support in particular to: 
— the proposal that waste water should basically be 
treated in two stages (including biological treatment) 
and that nutrients (e.g. nitrates and phosphates) should 
be eliminated, 
— the provision stipulating that, in accordance with 
Article 130r and 130t of the EEC Treaty, Member States 
can take more stringent measures depending on specific 
regional or local situations, 
— the Commission proposal which not only contains limit 
values and technical measures, but also lays down 
provisions on the supply, basic and further training of 
the personnel needed to operate waste-water treatment 
plants; without qualified specialist staff the proper 
operation of waste-water treatment plants cannot be 
guaranteed, 
— the proposal that the public be given access to all 
information about the state of areas of water. 
Although the objectives of the Commission's proposal and 
the appropriateness of the technical and practical measures 
proposed therein are therefore not open to question, the 
Committee considers that the document still poses basic 
problems. These are as follows: 
3. Modern technology allows waste water to be treated 
in several stages (including the elimination of nutrients). 
New sewage plants should therefore only be allowed to 
operate if they have mechanical, biological and physical-
chemical treatment facilities. Appropriate transitional 
periods should be laid down to allow time for improve­
ments to old sewage plants. Old plants tend to break down 
frequently so measures are needed to cover emergencies so 
that ecological catastrophes are avoided. 4. Execution of the programme set out in the proposed 
Directive (the construction and operation of new treatment 
plants or the adaptation of existing plants to state-of-the-
art technologies by the prescribed deadline) places an 
extremely heavy financial burden on large areas of the 
Community. This burden, which is borne by the public 
authorities of the Member States, should, the Committee 
believes, also be shared by the European Community, (i) in 
regions which cannot find the necessary investment funds 
by themselves (or not by the deadline set) and (ii) in cases 
where research and development has to be carried out 
before the programme can be implemented. 
4.1. During the next few years, therefore, priority 
should be given to financing municipal waste water 
schemes through targeted Community funds (e.g. Envireg, 
Community environmental action programme, research 
and development programmes). Meeting the deadline for 
implementation of the Directive's programme also pro­
vides an additional incentive for the creation of a European 
Environment Fund as advocated by the Committee in its 
own-initiative opinion of 15 November 1989 (]). 
5. In the proposed Directive the Commission seeks to 
solve major financial and other problems by allowing 
plants operating at current levels of sewage technology to 
deal with discharges into coastal waters whilst insisting on 
comprehensive waste water treatment only in 'sensitive 
areas'. Members of the Committee have reservations about 
such discriminatory practices. 
5.1. Drawing a distinction between coastal waters on 
the one hand and fresh water (including estuaries) on the 
other would seem to be questionable if it means that 
discharges into coastal waters are in the long run to be 
partly excluded from secondary (i.e. biological) treatment. 
Large tracts of European coastal waters are already as 
polluted as fresh water resources inland. Even on the high 
seas further pollution could lead to irreversible ecological 
damage. 
5.2. The mere collection of municipal sewage — with or 
without a physical treatment stage — does not suffice for 
the ecological protection of water or for ensuring adequate 
drinking water supplies. It is only acceptable as a 
temporary solution. 
5.3. The same applies to the Commission proposal that 
waste-water treatment to eliminate nutrients be confined to 
specific areas. The non-coverage of other areas can be 
permitted for a limited period but not indefinitely if ever-
(!) Environmental Policy, a Fundamental Aspect of Economic and 
Social Development, OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1990. 
No C 168/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 90 
declining water resources are to be preserved for future 
generations. 
5.4. The Committee believes that these problems can be 
tackled more successfully if priorities are set for the timing 
of the planned measures. 
5.5. To ease the quite considerable financial problems of 
implementing the Directive — problems which cannot even 
be completely solved by the provision of Community funds 
— the deadlines for installing sewage plants could be 
staggered. In large residential and industrial areas (e.g. at 
least 500 000 population equivalent) the treatment plants 
would have to be constructed ahead of schedule (perhaps as 
early as by 31 December 1996), whereas in all other areas 
later deadlines (which might or might not be staggered 
further) would be set. 
5.6. Responsibility throughout the Community for 
treating most of the sewage produced probably lies with the 
large municipalities. Because of the greater efficiency and 
tapering costs of large-scale installations, state-of-the-art 
water-treatment plants can be installed most cheaply in 
large municipalities. Laying down different deadlines does 
not mean that the overall aim of providing treatment 
facilities throughout the Community would be abandoned. 
State-of-the-art water-treatment facilities are also vitally 
important in rural areas, especially since farms will have to 
meet stringent environmental requirements regarding the 
use of nitrates. 
5.7. The staggering of deadlines, however, should be 
based not only on population equivalent figures but also on 
the sensitivity of the areas in question. Due attention might 
be paid here to the differences between inland waters, 
heavily polluted coastal waters and other receiving waters. 
Even the latter areas cannot manage without treatment 
facilities for ever. 
5.8. Staggered deadlines of this sort might make it easier 
to solve technological problems (where they still exist) and 
to train appropriate specialist staff. Waste water treatment 
plants can be gradually expanded in line with these 
deadlines. 
5.9. Finally, appropriate ways should be found of 
rewarding municipalities which use their initiative to solve 
sewage treatment problems ahead of schedule. If there are 
special circumstances, Member States should also be 
allowed to prescribe shorter deadlines in accordance with 
Article 19 of the proposal. 
6. The Committee points out that the technical and 
economic problems of sewage treatment may be easier to overcome if less sewage-water is produced. This can be 
done by reducing water consumption. The following 
measures might also be taken at European level, bearing in 
mind regional and structural particularities and remember­
ing that such measures should be complementary, rather 
than alternatives to, the Commission's proposals. 
6.1. The Committee believes that water consumption 
can be reduced by using 'economic instruments' of 
environmental policy, for example: 
— water rates should be put on a new basis so that water 
consumption over and above a minimum level is not 
charged at degressive rates, as has frequently happened 
in the past, 
— incentives should be introduced to encourage (a) the 
'recycling of water' (the purification of used water prior 
to its entering the collecting system as well as the re-
utilization of industrial water) and (b) the utilization of 
rain water collected in tanks; such incentives might 
possibly take the form of tax concessions. 
6.2. The appropriate expansion of European-level rules 
and regulations would also serve the same end. Examples 
include: 
— the adoption of European standards for equipment also 
used in private households (washing machines, dish­
washers, etc.) using large quantities of water; tech­
nological advances have reduced this equipment's water 
consumption quite considerably, 
— the adoption of harmonized standards which make it 
compulsory with certain new building projects to install 
rainwater tanks. 
6.3. Treatment problems are contingent not only on the 
quantity but also on the composition of the sewage (degree 
of pollution and noxiousness). The Commission's draft 
Directive should therefore be accompanied by regulations 
on (a) the differentiation of sewage tariffs according to the 
type and degree of pollution and/or (b) the introduction of 
sewage charges similar to the systems operating in certain 
European Community Member States; the additional 
income hopefully derived from this source should be 
harnessed to finance the modernization of old plants. 
7. The Committee works on the assumption that the 
present Directive will in future be amended to bring it into 
line with scientific and technological advances, especially if 
the Committee's proposal on a staggered timescale is 
accepted. The Committee therefore asks the Council of 
Ministers to examine — when adopting the Directive on 
the basis of the second paragraph of EEC Treaty 
Article 130s — whether it would not help to adopt future 
amendments by a qualified majority. 
10. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 168/39 
III. Comments on individual provisions 
Article 3 
Simply stating that municipalities must have sewage 
collection systems solves nothing unless adequate treat­
ment facilities are also available. All it does is endanger 
receiving waters even more. The requirement to provide 
collecting systems should therefore be coupled with the 
requirement to install treatment plants. The deadlines 
should be staggered according to the proposals made in 
point 3 of the general comments. 
Article 4 
Paragraph 1: Deadlines should be staggered according to 
the priorities laid down (see point 3 of the general 
comments). In the longer term all areas of the Community, 
including coastal areas, should be equipped with sewage 
treatment plants. 
Paragraph 3: The Committee takes the 'maximum daily 
load entering the treatment plant' to mean 'the daily 
pollution load'. The maximum daily load is calculated on 
the basis of monitoring carried out over a one-year period. 
Article 5 
The sensitivity of areas polluted by the arrival of unclean 
waste water should be taken into consideration when 
ordering different time-scales (i.e. staggering the entry into 
force of the provisions). In the longer term sewage in all 
areas must undergo more thorough-going additional 
treatment to eliminate nutrients. 
Article 6 
Paragraphs 2 and 3: Less-sensitive areas should have a low 
priority when it comes to staggering deadlines; such areas, 
however, should only be exonerated from the need to 
submit to sewage treatment for a limited period. 
Article 7 
The Committee assumes that the 'appropriate treatment' 
within the meaning of this Article includes at least the 
'primary treatment' defined in point 10 of Annex I. 
Article 9 
Waste water treatment still faces a number of technical 
problems, e.g. the elimination of nutrients under all 
climatic conditions. The Committee trusts that the 
Commission will give its support to suitable research and 
development projects. The Committee also requests that 
consideration be given to the possibility of incorporating in 
the Directive a provision whereby new waste water treatment plants must be tested by experts for efficiency 
before they can be brought into service. 
Article 10 
Article 10 (3) must stipulate that authorizations also have 
to be compatible with national provisions and programmes 
(see Article 19). 
Article 11 
Steps must be taken to ensure that sludge does not get into 
receiving waters, otherwise sewage treatment might as well 
be dispensed with altogether. 
Article 12 
The Committee assumes that, in accordance with Annex 1 
(5), waste water from hotels, hospitals, etc. not entering 
municipal waste water treatment plants will be covered by 
Article 12. 
The Committee also assumes that agricultural effluents 
will not be allowed to enter municipal sewage treatment 
plants under any circumstances, otherwise the cost of 
sewage treatment would rise out of all proportion. 
Given that industrial effluents are not comparable with 
municipal sewage, the Committee would point out that 
limit values urgently need to be added to Directive 76/464/ 
EEC. Many types of industrial waste water are not covered 
by European legislation at all. 
Article 13 
The Committee basically endorses the provisions in 
Article 13. State-of-the-art technology now permits the 
environmentally-friendly disposal of sludge. The prime 
aim, however, should be to recycle sludge. A ban on the 
disposal of sludges at sea is also necessary from an 
ecological point of view; the Commission quite rightly 
refers to the provisions in the International Conference for 
the Protection of the North Sea (page 5 of the explanatory 
memorandum). With regard to other seas (e.g. Mediter­
ranean, Baltic) which have riparian non-member States, the 
conclusion of appropriate international agreements would 
be an effective way of rounding off the present Directive. 
Article 15 
The information to be made available to the public 
pursuant to Article 15 (1) should include 'breakdowns and 
accidents in waste water treatment plants'. 
No C 168/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 90 
Article 16 
It is unrealistic to expect that comprehensive programmes 
for the implementation of this Directive can be drawn up by 
as early as 31 December 1991. 
Article 17 
The Committee assumes that national governments will 
send experts to become members of the regulatory 
committee. Irrespective of whether or not they do so, the 
regulatory committee should still work together closely 
with groups and organizations having specialist knowledge 
in this field. 
Article 20 
Paragraph 2: The Commission should be obliged to 
consult the regulatory committee on measures to promote 
the training of staff and improve waste water technology. 
Annex I 
The definition of 'appropriate treatment' in Annex 1(1) 
requires a radical reappraisal. Difficulties arise when 
receiving waters are already heavily polluted by discharges 
upstream (including discharges not falling within the 
jurisdiction of the European Community); in such cases the 
treatment of municipal waste waters cannot ensure that water will be restored to the state of cleanliness laid down 
in Community Directives. It would therefore be worth 
examining whether the reduction of emissions (technical 
waste water treatment) ought not to be based on state-of-
the-art technology. 
In Annex I (10) 'die gelosten organischen Feststoffe' is 
changed to read 'die ungelosten organischen Feststoffe' 
(affects the German but not the English version). 
Annex II B 
Provision No 3 is at odds with Article 19. Member States 
should be able to adopt more stringent measures if specific 
regional situations so require. 
Annex III 
The ground-water level situation should also be taken into 
account in defining sensitive areas. 
Done at Brussels, 25 April 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE