COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Annex Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Seventh Report on the Implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)
Date: 2013-08-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, capital city, urban area, wastewater, water treatment













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0298 - EN











|



52013SC0298

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Annex Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Seventh Report on the Implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) /* SWD/2013/0298 final */









Table
1: National compliance rates as concerns collection, secondary treatment and
more stringent treatment 
 Member State || Collection compliance rate (%) || Secondary treatment compliance rate (%) || More stringent treatment compliance rate (%) 
 Austria || 100 || 100 || 100 
 Belgium || 78 || 73 || 52 
 Bulgaria || 15 || 6 || 2 
 Cyprus[1] || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Czech Republic || 100 || 81 || 20 
 Denmark || 100 || 99 || 94 
 Estonia || 30 || 31 || 21 
 Finland || 100 || 97 || 97 
 France || 96 || 84 || 87* 
 Germany || 100 || 100 || 100 
 Greece || 100 || 99 || 100** 
 Hungary || 100 || 100 || 48 
 Ireland || 100 || 40 || 2 
 Italy || 87 || 64 || 86* 
 Latvia || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Lithuania || 100 || 98 || 85 
 Luxembourg || 100 || 57 || 38 
 Malta || 100 || 5 || 0 
 Netherlands || 100 || 100 || 100 
 Poland || 71 || 24 || 10 
 Portugal || 97 || 47 || 20 
 Romania[2] || transition period pending || transition period pending || transition period pending 
 Slovakia || 100 || 90 || transition period pending 
 Slovenia || 32 || 23 || 23 
 Spain || 98 || 86 || 54 
 Sweden || 100 || 99 || 87 
 United Kingdom || 100 || 98 || 63 
   ||   ||   ||   
 EU 15 || 97 || 88 || 90 
 EU-12[3] || 72 || 39 || 14 
 EU 27[4] || 94 || 82 || 77 
Colors show ranges of compliance: red…0% - 20%,
orange…>20% - 40%, yellow…>40% - 60%, green…>60 – 80%, blue…>80% -
100%, white…no data or transition period still pending
Compliance rate makes reference to the waste water
generated only by the settlements which have been found to be in
compliance with the Directive for collection, secondary/biological treatment,
or more stringent treatment
*National compliance rate originates from the
absolute load compliant with Art. 5(2,3) and the collected load of
agglomerations, which discharge into compliant Art. 5(4)-areas (the latest are
areas where there must be a percentage of reduction of the overall load
entering the plants of 75% for Nitrogen and 75% for Phosphorus to reach
compliance with art 5 (more stringent treatment). Therefore compliance is
assessed at the level of the area as a whole, and not at the level of individual
towns/cities)
** In Greece, 279 out of the total
number of 478 agglomerations (representing 11% of the total generated load)
were reported with 100% of the generated load addressed through IAS (in full). IAS
means individual or other appropriate systems, and related figures are
reflected as reported by MS, i.e., appropriateness is not checked by the
Commission These agglomerations are not subject to Article 4, therefore were
not considered for the calculation of this compliance rate (biological treatment).
Table 2: Compliance in EU-27 capital cities (big cities) and other
relevant information
 MEMBER STATE || CAPITAL CITY || Population (CAPITAL) || Collection || Secondary Treatment || More stringent Treatment (art 5.2) || FINAL Assessment 
 AUSTRIA || VIENNA || 4000000 || C || C || NR || C 
 BELGIUM || BRUSSELS || 1460000 || C || C || NC || NC 
 BULGARIA || SOFIA || 1291054 || NC || NC || NC || NC 
 CYPRUS || NICOSIA || 220000 || NC || NC || NC || NC 
 CZECH REPUBLIC || PRAGUE || 1354080 || C || C || NC || NC 
 DENMARK || COPENHAGUEN || 1100000 || C || C || C || C 
 ESTONIA || TALLIN || 468000 || NC || NC || NC || NC 
 FINLAND || HELSINKI || 1261200 || C || C || C || C 
 FRANCE || PARIS || 9410000 || C || C || NR || C 
 GERMANY || BERLIN || 3640627 || C || C || NR || C 
 GREECE || ATHENS || 5400000 || C || C || C || C 
 HUNGARY || BUDAPEST || 3389914 || NR || NR || NR || NCO 
 IRELAND || DUBLIN || 2454924 || C || NC || NC || NC 
 ITALY || ROME || 2784000 || C || NC || NA || NC 
 LATVIA || RIGA || 713016 || NC || NC || NC || NC 
 LITHUANIA || VILNIUS || 740200 || C || C || C || C 
 LUXEMBOURG || LUXEMBOURG || 244018 || C || NC || NC || NC 
 MALTA || LA VALETTA || 350000 || C || NC || NC || NC 
 NETHERLANDS || AMSTERDAM || 908121 || C || C || NR || C 
 POLAND || WARSAW || 2448500 || NC || NC || NC || NC 
 PORTUGAL || LISBON || 1063000 || C || NC || NA || NC 
 ROMANIA || BUCAREST || 2158691 || NR || NR || NR || NCO 
 SLOVAKIA || BRATISLAVA || 539871 || C || C || NR || C 
 SLOVENIA || LJUBLJANA || 351623 || NR || NR || NA || NCO 
 SPAIN || MADRID || 4072507 || C || C || NR || C 
 SWEDEN || STOCKHOLM || 1632000 || C || C || C || C 
 UNITED KINGDOM || LONDON || 10511791 || C || C || NC || NC 
Legend: C: compliant; NC: non-compliant; NR: not relevant
(because the deadline is not expired yet, either for article 3, 4 or 5.2, or
regarding art 5.2 only, because art 5.4 applies at the level of the area of
discharge); NA: not applicable (agglomerations discharging into normal areas)
NCO: no compliance obligations (in general)
N.B. big cities, when composed by several different
settlements, are considered as "compliant" only when all the
settlements are in compliance. 
Additional information as at 2009/10
Capital cities where more stringent treatment (application of
art 5.2) is considered as "not relevant":
·                        
Vienna (Austria)
Vienna discharges into an art.
5.4 sensitive area which is compliant as a whole for more stringent treatment.
Besides this, 100% of the waste water in Vienna receives more stringent
treatment.
·                        
Paris (France)
Paris discharges into an art.
5(2,3) sensitive area, which was designated by France in 2006. This area is
still under transitional period (7 years), therefore without compliance
obligations in the reported year. In any case, 100% of the waste water from Paris received more stringent treatment.
·                        
Berlin (Germany)
Berlin discharges into an art
5.4 sensitive area which is compliant as a whole for more stringent treatment.
Besides this, more than 99% of the waste water in Berlin receives more
stringent treatment.
·                        
Budapest (Hungary)
Budapest discharges into an art
5.4 sensitive area which still is under transitional period. Besides this and
for the moment, Budapest is applying more stringent treatment in 57% of its
waste waters.
·                        
Amsterdam (Netherlands)
Amsterdam discharges into an art
5.4 sensitive area which is compliant as a whole for more stringent treatment.
Besides this, 100% of the waste water in Amsterdam receives more stringent
treatment.
·                        
Bucharest (Romania)
Bucharest applies art. 5.8,
i.e., the whole Romanian territory is considered as sensitive. Bucharest is still under transitional period until end of 2015. However, the Authorities
have not reported any information on more stringent treatment in Bucharest.
·                        
Bratislava (Slovakia)
Bratislava discharges into an
art 5(2,3) sensitive area. Bratislava was still under transitional period (end
of 2010), in the reported year (2009). Besides this and when reported, Bratislava was applying more stringent treatment only in 7% of its waste waters.
·                        
Madrid (Spain)
Madrid discharges into an art.
5(2,3) sensitive area which was designated by Spain in 2006. This area is still
under transitional period (7 years), therefore without compliance obligations
in the reported year. In any case, 100% of the waste water from Madrid received more stringent treatment.
Capital cities considered to be in breach
·                        
Brussels (Belgium)
According to the information used for the
preparation of this report, the agglomeration of Brussels did not comply in
2010 since not all the load was properly treated in line with Article 5(2). There
was a breach on more stringent treatment as 22% of the pollution load, reaching
the plant "Bruxelles Sud", was receiving only secondary treatment,
when it should also receive Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) removal. Only
recently the agglomeration of Brussels would have completed its collecting
obligations. The treatment being provided at present would meet the
requirements of Article 5(4), but the case has been presented to the Court and
a final decision is expected.
·                        
Sofia (Bulgaria) 
There was a breach on collection and secondary
treatment, as 19.6% of the pollution load is not collected or treated.
Additionally, 79 % of the treated pollution load was addressed through the
"UWWTP Sofia", with failing results for N and P removal (breach on
more stringent treatment). 1% (by population of 14600) of the pollution load
was addressed through the plant "Kanalizacia Sofia", and no results
or treatment type are provided.
·                        
Nicosia (Cyprus)
18% of the generated pollution load was not collected or
treated. 75.7% of the pollution load was addressed through treatment plants, of
which 63.6% is in compliance (the rest, addressed by the treatment plant
Anthoupolis B, has not reported results).
·                        
Prague (Czech Republic)
99.2% of the pollution load was treated, but results are
not compliant for tertiary treatment (N removal).
·                        
Tallin (Estonia)
1% of the pollution load was not collected and treated
(by population of 4680): as a consequence there was a breach in collection and
treatment. However, all the treated load shows compliant results for secondary
treatment. The plant named "Tallin" fails for N removal (receiving
96% of the pollutant load). The plant named "Muuga Sadam", treating
3% of the pollutant load, fails for P removal.
·                        
Dublin (Ireland)
Treatment failed in 100% of the pollution load for all
parameters, on secondary and more stringent treatment.
·                        
Rome (Italy)
Rome was a big city composed by 17 settlements all them compliant with
collection. About secondary treatment, 3.16% of the pollution load, i.e., by population
of 86872, was in breach. This is addressed by a number of treatment plants, all
in the settlement (city) of Rome, namely: Quarto Miglio-Almone, Acqua Traversa,
Maglianella, Collettore Crescenza, Ponte Ladrone, for which results were not
reported.
·                        
Riga (Latvia)
4 % of the pollutant load (by population of 28521) was
discharged without collection and treatment, therefore was in breach. Results
were compliant for secondary treatment in the treated load. There was, however,
breach for art 5 in the only plant in this city " BAI
"Daugavgriva", which fails for Nitrogen removal.
·                        
Luxembourg (Luxembourg)
Luxembourg was in breach with
secondary treatment for 15% of the pollution load (by population of 36603), and
84% was also in breach for more stringent treatment. There were five treatment
plants in Luxembourg, the plant named " Uebersyren", receiving 15% of
the load, was in breach for organic pollution (parameter related to secondary
treatment); there were failing results in other four plants for N removal (84%
of the pollution load), and for P removal in other two plants (58% of the
pollution load).
·                        
La Valetta (Malta)
There was a breach with secondary treatment. With two
treatment plants, one of them was inactive and the other, treating 100% of the
load, has not reported results.
·                        
Warsaw (Poland)
37.6% of the pollutant load was not collected. The
entire treated pollutant load complied with secondary treatment (i.e., 62.4%);
only 31.2% of the treated pollutant load complied with tertiary treatment. Warsaw has two treatment plants, each of them receiving the half of the treated load; the
plant named: "Zakład Oczyszczalni Ścieków Czajka O1",
failed for N removal.
·                        
Lisbon (Portugal)
Lisbon was in breach for
secondary treatment in 63% of the pollutant load. Lisbon has four plants, two
of them with failing results for secondary treatment ("Alcantara",
treating 52% of the pollutant load, and the plant named "SC Lisboa",
treating 11% of the pollutant load).
·                        
London (United Kingdom)
London was composed by 10
settlements, all compliant for collection and secondary treatment. One of them,
London-Deephams, with population of 823003, was in breach for tertiary
treatment (discharging into a Sensitive Area which requires P removal, it has
been reported as not requiring more stringent treatment, only secondary).
Table 3: Most relevant infringement cases (to date)
 CASES RELATED TO LARGE TOWNS/CITIES (above 10000 or 15000 population) 
 Case number || Member State || Type of discharge area (NSA: not sensitive, SA: sensitive) || Court Ruling and related date (if applicable) 
 1998/2110 || FR || SA || 23/09/2004 (C-280/02) 
 2004/2032 || FR || NSA ||   
 2002/2123 || ES || SA ||   
 2004/2031 || ES || NSA || 14/04/2011 (C-343/10) 
 1999/2030 || BE || SA || 08/07/2004 (C-27/03) 
 2002/2128 || PT || SA || 8/09/2011 (C-220/10) 
 2004/2035 || PT || NSA || 07/05/2009 (C-530/07) 
 2004/2033 || IE || NSA || 11/09/2008 (C-316/06) 
 2009/2034 || IT || SA ||   
 2004/2034 || IT || NSA || 19/07/2012 (C-565/10) 
 2002/2125 || LU || SA || 23/11/2006 (C-452/05) 
 2004/2036 || UK || NSA || 25/01/2007 (C-405/05) 
 2004/2030 || EL || NSA || 25/10/2007 (C-440/06) 
 2002/2130 || SE || SA || 06/10/2009 (C-438/07) 
 CASES RELATED TO SMALL AND LARGE (LATELY FOUND IN BREACH) TOWNS/CITIES 
 Case number || Member State || Type of discharge area (NSA: not sensitive, SA: sensitive) 
 2009/2304 || BE || Not relevant 
 2009/2306 || FR || SA/NSA 
 2009/2309 || PT || SA/NSA 
 2009/2307 || DE || Not relevant 
 2009/2310 || SE || SA/NSA 
 2011/4041 || EL || SA/NSA 
 2012/2100 || ES || SA/NSA 
N.B. All these cases, considered as the most relevant, are
categorized as "horizontal": it means that they do not cover single
towns/cities but groups of them classified in a similar category as regards
compliance obligations, which have been found in breach for one or several
articles in the Directive, as per Member State.
Table 4: Court judgements (2009-2012)
 C-530/07 Commission v Portugal     ||   07/05/2009 || The Court concluded that Portugal has breached its obligations under Article 3 of the Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment for not ensuring that 7 agglomerations have collecting systems for urban waste water and Article 4 for not ensuring secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment for urban waste water entering collection systems concerning 15 agglomerations.   ||   
 C-335/07 Commission v Finland     ||   06/10/2009 || The Court dismissed the action. The Commission failed to provide the necessary evidence to prove a causal link between the discharges of nitrogen from treatment plants from agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. situated in the relevant catchment areas and the pollution (eutrophication) of the sensitive areas. ||   
 C-438/07 Commission v Sweden   ||   06/10/2009 || The Court finds Sweden in breach of Dir. 91/271/EC concerning discharges of nitrogen from treatment plants in agglomerations Sweden itself acknowledged to be in breach. The Court dismisses the action in the remainder. The Commission failed to provide the necessary evidence to prove a causal link between the discharges of nitrogen from treatment plants from agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. situated in the relevant catchment areas and the pollution (eutrophication) of the sensitive areas. AG proposed to dismiss the case on the basis of insufficient evidence.   ||   
 C-390/07 Commission v UK     || 10/12/2009 || The Court finds UK in breach of Article 5 of Dir.91/271/EC concerning two agglomerations and dismissed the bigger part of the action as the Commission failed to provide the necessary evidence. ||   
 C-526/09 Commission v Portugal     || 02/12/2010 || This is a judgment in a case the Commission brought against Portugal for non-compliance with the Waste water Directive (91/271/EEC) with regard to non-authorised discharge of waste industrial water from the industrial unit Estação de Serviço Sobritos. The Court found that Portugal did not comply with the Waste water Directive by allowing discharge of industrial waste water without a proper authorisation (Art.11). The Court found that Portugal failed to substantiate its claim that compliance was achieved after it initially admitted non-compliance in its reply to the Reasoned Opinion. ||   ||   || 
 C-343/10 Commission v Spain     ||   14/04/2011 || This is a Court judgment in a case the Commission brought against Spain for bad application of Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) for failure to ensure proper urban waste water treatment in a number of agglomerations. The Court concluded that Spain is in breach of the UWWTD by failing to ensure a proper collection and treatment of urban waste water in more than 40 agglomerations. ||   ||   || 
 C-220/10 Commission v Portugal   ||   08/09/2011 || This is a Court judgment in a case the Commission brought against Portugal for breach of urban waste water treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). The Court concluded that Portugal breached the Directive in respect of certain zones and agglomerations by incorrectly designating them as less sensitive zones (Art.6), by not applying the required treatment level (Art.4, 5) and by not ensuring a collecting system (Art.3). ||   ||   || 
 C-565/10 Commission v Italy   ||   19/07/2012 || This is a Court's judgment in a case the Commission brought against Italy for failure to comply with the Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). The Court confirmed that Italy failed to put in place systems for collecting waste water in over 50 agglomerations (pe above 15 000), ensuring secondary or equivalent treatment before discharge in over 90 agglomerations (pe above 15 000) and as a result Italy has failed to ensure that treatment plants in these agglomerations are built and perform sufficiently in all climate conditions. ||   ||   || 
 C-301/10 Commission v UK   ||   18/10/2012 || This is a Court's judgment in a case the Commission brought against UK for failure to comply with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC), with regard to excessive storm water overflows from collecting systems. In London, there were substantial and frequent spills into the Thames even with very moderate rainfall.. The Court confirmed that UK failed to ensure that appropriate collection systems are established and full compliant treatment is provided in London. ||   ||   || 
N.B. the term
"agglomeration" in the UWWTD is equivalent to towns/cities generating
pollution load, which is discharged into receiving waters
The term p.e. (population
equivalent) is the pollution load generated by population and other sources of
biodegradable pollution, such as the agro-food industry, expressed in terms
which are equivalent to population units.
[1]                      Based on
information recently provided, collection rate in Cyprus would be equal to 11%
[2]                      Figures on
"installations in place" (collecting systems and treatment plants)
are available for Romania. For a total of 2390 Romanian towns/cities, there are
544 collecting systems in place (covering 51% of the population), 270 plants
providing secondary treatment (serving 31% of the population), and 30 plants
providing more stringent treatment (serving 6.5% of the population).
Significant additional efforts are needed if Romania is to meet its future
compliance deadlines. 
[3]                      For the
reporting exercise 2011 the following interim deadlines were taken into account
for EU-12 MS for the first time: 
- By
31 December 2010, BG had to be compliant with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) for all
agglomerations > 10,000 p.e..
- As
for CY, 2 agglomerations (Limassol and Paralimni) with > 15,000 p.e. had to
be compliant with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2)
by
31 December 2008. Agglomeration Nicosia with > 15,000 p.e. had to be
compliant with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) by 31 December 2009.
- By
31 December 2009, EE had to be compliant with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) for all
agglomerations > 10,000 p.e..
- By
31 December 2008, HU had to be compliant with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) for all
agglomerations in sensitive areas with > 10,000 p.e..
-
For LV, the final deadline to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) expired on 31
December 2008 for all agglomerations with > 100,000 p.e..
- By
31 Dec 2010, PL had to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) in 1069
agglomerations representing 86% of the total biodegradable load.
- By
31 Dec 2008, SK had to comply with Articles 3 and 4 for 91% of the total
biodegradable load.
-
For SI, the final deadline to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) terminated on
31 December 2008 for all agglomerations with > 10,000 p.e.
in
sensitive areas. The final deadline of the transitional period to comply with
the requirements of the Directive expired in this reporting period for CZ
(as
of 31 December 2010) and LT (as of 31 December 2009). 
[4]                      Compliance
rates are weighted by the size of the country, i.e., by the amount of waste
water generated in each country