kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2016
KOM (2016) 0105
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 4.3.2016

SWD(2016) 45 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

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

Eighth Report on the Implementation Status and the Programmes for Implementation

(as required by Article 17) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste

water treatment

{COM(2016) 105 final}

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1- National and EU compliance rates as concerns collection, secondary treatment and

more stringent treatment.........................................................................................................4

1.2-Figures related to Individual or other Appropriate Systems (IAS)..................................5

1.2.1- Percentage of agglomerations in which IAS is applied............................................5

1.2.2- Percentage of generated load addressed through IAS..............................................5

1.3- Compliance status of capital cities..................................................................................6

1.4- Maps on compliance with the Directive at regional level...............................................7

1.4.1- Compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Directive on regional level in

EU-28 Member States ........................................................................................................7

1.4.2- Compliance with the requirements of Article 4 of the Directive on regional level in

EU-28 Member States ........................................................................................................8

1.4.3- Compliance with the requirements of Article 5 of the Directive on regional level in

EU-28 Member States ........................................................................................................9

2- Information on legal procedures during the 8

reporting exercise......................................10

2.1- Court judgments 2013-2015 .........................................................................................10

2.2- Main infringement cases 2013-2014.............................................................................12

Infringement Cases ...........................................................................................................12

3 - Distance to compliance.......................................................................................................13

3.1 - Introduction..................................................................................................................13

3.2 - Expired deadlines of the UWWTD..............................................................................14

3.2.1 - Connection to collecting systems and treatment through IAS ..............................14

3.2.2 - Waste water connected, secondary treatment in place and performance

requirements met ..............................................................................................................15

3.2.3 - Waste water connected, more stringent treatment in place and performance

requirements met ..............................................................................................................17

3.3 - Varying deadlines of the UWWTD .............................................................................19

3.3.1 - Connection to collecting systems and treatment through IAS ..............................20

3.3.2 - Waste water connected, secondary treatment in place and performance met.......20

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

3.3.3 - Waste water connected, more stringent treatment in place and performance met 22

3.4 - Conclusions..................................................................................................................22

4 - Summary of assessment of Article 17 Report ....................................................................23

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

1- Details on implementation results presented in the 8

Implementation Report

The information provided in Chapter 2 of the 8

Urban Waste Water Treatment

implementation report gives a good overview of the situation mainly at EU level. This annex

provides additional tables, graphs and maps, illustrating in a more detailed manner the

implementation results at (sub) national level.

1.1- National and EU compliance rates as concerns collection, secondary treatment and

more stringent treatment

Member State

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

EU 15*

EU 13**

EU 28

Article 3

rate (%)

100

transition period pending

100

compliance

Article 4

compliance rate (%)

100

transition period pending

100

Article 5

compliance rate (%)

100

transition period pending

100

The colours in the table above 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.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

1.2-Figures related to Individual or other Appropriate Systems (IAS)

1.2.1- Percentage of agglomerations in which IAS is applied

100

BG ES UK CY RO SI IT DE GR CZ LT EE LV AT LU HU SK

1.2.2- Percentage of generated load addressed through IAS

BG UK

AT RO LU

ES DE CY EE

SK HU GR

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

1.3- Compliance status of capital cities

MEMBER

STATE

CAPITAL

CITY

Population

equivalents

Collection

(Article 3)

Secondary

Treatment

(Article 4)

More stringent FINAL

Treatment

Assessment

(Article 5.2 or

5.4)

NCO

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Vienna

Brussels

Sofia

Zagreb

Nicosia

4,000,000 C

1,460,000 C

2,037,000 NC

957,301 NR

235,000 C

1,140,489 C

1,100,000 C

468,000 C

1,223,100 C

9,577,285 C

3,948,976 C

5,200,000 C

2,468,109 C

2,362,329 C

2,768,000 C

762,739 C

703,000 C

228,741 C

429,009 C

901,908 C

1,063,000 C

2,159,995 NC

600,032 C

302,293 C

4,072,507 C

2,586,400 C

10,012,460 C

Czech Republic Prague

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United

Kingdom

Copenhagen

Tallin

Helsinki

Paris

Berlin

Athens

Budapest

Dublin

Rome

Riga

Vilnius

Luxembourg

La Valetta

Amsterdam

Warsaw

Lisbon

Bucharest

Bratislava

Ljubljana

Madrid

Stockholm

London

Compliance status: C = compliance, NC = non-compliance, NR = not relevant as the deadline is

not expired yet, either for Article 3, 4 or 5, NA = not applicable as agglomeration is discharging

into normal area, NCO = no compliance obligation (in general) and ND = no data available.

Compliance with Article 5.4 refers to the area of discharge of the agglomeration.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

1.4- Maps on compliance with the Directive at regional level

1.4.1- Compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Directive on regional level in

EU-28 Member States

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

1.4.2- Compliance with the requirements of Article 4 of the Directive on regional level in

EU-28 Member States

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

1.4.3- Compliance with the requirements of Article 5 of the Directive on regional level in

EU-28 Member States

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

2- Information on legal procedures during the 8

reporting exercise

The information provided in Chapter 3.4 of the 8

Urban Waste Water Treatment

implementation report gives general information on the legal actions the European

Commission undertakes when non-compliance with the Directive is suspected. This annex

provides more details on ongoing and closed cases and on their status.

2.1- Court judgments 2013-2015

Case numbers

Date of

judgment

pending

Issue at stake / Short summary

C-304/15

Commission v

United Kingdom

C-320/15

Commission v

Greece

C-314/15

Commission v

France

C-557/14

Commission v

Portugal

C-398/14

Commission v

Portugal

C-167/14

Commission v

Greece

Failure to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 10 of UWWT

Directive

pending

Failure to comply with Article 4 of UWWT Directive

pending

Failure to comply with Article 4 of UWWT Directive

pending

Failure to comply with Case C-530/07 (Article 260 TFEU

case)

pending

Failure to comply with Article 4 of UWWT Directive (52

agglomerations between 2000 and 10000 population

equivalent)

This is the Court's judgment in a case the Commission

brought against Greece for failure to comply with the Court's

ruling in Case C-440/06 (Article 260 TFEU case). The Court

declared that Greece failed to implement the judgment and

imposed a penalty payment of EUR 3 640 000 per semester

from the day of the judgment until full compliance is

achieved. The Court also imposed a EUR 2 million lump-sum

penalty payment on Greece.

This is the Court's judgment in a case the Commission

brought against Belgium for failure to comply with the

UWWT Directive in relation to 57 agglomerations with a

population equivalent of more than 2,000 and less than

10,000. The Commission abandoned in part its claim for

some agglomerations in light of the information provided by

Belgium. The Court decided that Belgium failed to ensure the

15.10.2015

C-395/13

Commission v

Belgium

6.11.2014

The case number refers to the number attributed to the case when registered by the Court of Justice of the

European Union.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

collection and treatment of urban waste waters in 15

agglomerations and failed to ensure proper treatment in

additional 33 agglomerations. The Court also clarified that

Member States are required under Annex I.D to ensure 12

samples over the course of the first year of operation of a

facility to demonstrate compliance.

C-85/13 Commission

v Italy

10.04.2014

This is the Court's judgment in a case the Commission

brought against Italy for failure to comply with the UWWT

Directive. Italy did not contest this. The Court decided that

Italy failed to ensure that all waste waters are collected and

treated according to the applicable requirements in 41

agglomerations.

This is the Court's judgment in a case the Commission

brought against Luxembourg for failure to implement the

judgment in case C-452/05 (Article 260 TFEU case). The

Court declared that Luxembourg failed to implement the

judgment (non-compliance regarding treatment in 6

agglomerations out of 12 that were subject to the first

judgment) and that it is justified to impose a penalty payment

of EUR 2800 per day from the day of the judgment until full

compliance is achieved. The Court also considered that a

lump sum is necessary given the excessive duration of the

infringement (7 years) and imposed a EUR 2 million penalty.

This is the Court's judgment in a case the Commission

brought against France for failure to comply with the UWWT

Directive. France did not contest this. The Court decided that

France failed to ensure that all waste waters are collected in

one agglomeration and that all waste water is treated

according to the applicable requirements in five

agglomerations.

This is the Court's judgment in a case the Commission

brought against Belgium for failure to implement the

judgment in case C-27/03 (Article 260 TFEU case). The

Court declared that BE failed to implement the judgment

(non-compliance regarding collection systems for 7

agglomerations and treatment in 21 agglomerations) in

relation to five agglomerations and that it is justified to

impose a penalty payment of EUR 4,722 per day to be

calculated for six month periods, i.e. EUR 859,404 for every

six month-period since this judgment. The Court also

considered that a lump sum is necessary as a deterrent

measure and imposed a EUR 10,000,000 penalty.

This is the Court's ruling in a case the Commission brought

against Greece for failure to take comply with the Habitats

C-576/11

Commission v

Luxembourg

28.11.2013

C-23/13 Commission

v France

7.11.2013

C-533/11

Commission v

Belgium

17.10.2013

C-517/11

Commission v

07.02.2013

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

Greece

Directive (92/43/EEC) and UWWT Directive. The Court

ruled that Greece failed to comply with the Habitats Directive

as it had not taken the required steps to avoid the

deterioration and pollution of Lake Koroneia. The Court also

ruled, as acknowledged by Greece, that it failed to comply

with the UWWT Directive Articles 3 and 4 by not ensuring

collection and treatment of waste water in Langadas

agglomeration.

2.2- Main infringement cases 2013-2014

Infringement Cases

CASES RELATED TO LARGE TOWNS/CITIES (above 10,000 or 15,000 population equivalents)

Case number

Member State

Court Ruling and related date (if applicable)

08/07/2004 (C-27/03)

1999/2030

17/10/2013 (C-533/11) (Art 260)

2002/2123

Pending (no referral to the Court yet)

23/11/2006 (C-452/05)

2002/2125

2002/2128

2002/2130

2004/2030

2004/2031

2004/2032

2004/2035

2004/2034

2009/2034

28/11/2013 (C-576/11) (Art 260)

(Pending Art 260 - C-167/14)

14/04/2011 (C-343/10)

07/11/2013 (C-23/13)

07/05/2009 (C-530/07)

19/07/2012 (C-565/10)

10/04/2014 (C-85/13)

8/09/2011 (C-220/10)

06/10/2009 (C-438/07)

25/10/2007 (C-440/06)

The case number refers to the reference number attributed by the European Commission to each infringement

case.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

CASES RELATED TO SMALL AND LARGE AGGLOMERATIONS

Case number

2009/2304

2009/2306

2009/2309

2009/2310

2011/2027

2012/2100

2013/2056

2013/2055

2014/2059

Member

State

Court Ruling and related date (if applicable)

6/11/2014 (C-395/13)

Pending before the Court (Case C-314/15)

Pending before the Court (Case C-398/14)

Pending (no referral to the Court yet)

Pending before the Court (Case C-320/15) Referral to the Court

Pending (no referral to the Court yet)

Pending before the Court (Case C-304/15) Referral to the Court

Pending (no referral to the Court yet)

3 - Distance to compliance

3.1 - Introduction

This report includes for the first time a new concept, "distance to compliance", with the

objective to have a broader view on the situation in the Member States on collection and

adequate treatment of the generated waste water load. This new concept does, in no way,

replace the formal assessment of the compliance with the requirements of Articles 3, 4 and 5

of the Directive. It is meant to present the rate of waste water load that is:

•

adequately connected to a centralised urban waste water collecting system (or

addressed

via

Individual or other Appropriate System – IAS) and then:

treated at an adequate level (secondary or more stringent treatment) as required by the

Directive,

and with the performance requirements under tables 1 or 2 of the Annex I of Directive

91/271/EEC (UWWTD).

In this document, all EU MS have been considered except PL, due to the provision of

insufficient and poor quality data under the current reporting exercise, and HR, still without

compliance obligations by 2012. IT was partially included (information from two regions

was missing).

The case number refers to the reference number attributed by the European Commission to each infringement

case.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

Example of the difference between "compliance" and "distance to compliance"

If in an agglomeration above 10,000 p.e. that discharges in a sensitive area for N and P, 10%

of the load is neither connected to a collecting system nor addressed

via

IAS, but 90% of the

load is connected to a collecting system and treated in a plant which applies a compliant more

stringent treatment, this agglomeration will be considered as non-compliant under Articles 3,

4 and 5, and the compliance rates will be 0%/0%/0%.

If the "distance to compliance" assessment is applied, 100% of the connected waste water

load is adequately treated, and 10% of the waste water would need to be connected or

addressed

via

IAS to comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Directive.

Consequently, the "distance to compliance" regarding collection or treatment through IAS

would be equal to 10% and "distance to compliance" concerning wastewater load connected

as regards secondary and more stringent treatment would be equal to 0%.

In the following sections, different sets of rates are compared and presented:

- Comparison between "compliance" and "installations in place in which performance is met"

at country level shows that the first concept is much more stringent than the second one and

that large differences between both values (low compliance rate versus higher good

performance rate in the generated load) may be found.

- Comparison between "non-compliance" (as the complementary rate of the "compliance"),

and "distance to compliance" shows that large differences in their respective values are

frequently found (the "distance to compliance" rate is usually much lower). This indicates

that both concepts, which are addressed to measure the lack of implementation of the

UWWTD, are conceptually different and that solely measuring "non-compliance" will give a

stricter and more severe outlook on a Member State's implementation of the UWWTD.

3.2 - Expired deadlines of the UWWTD

This chapter concerns only the urban waste water that falls under specific deadlines already

expired at the reference year (2011 or 2012).

3.2.1 - Connection to collecting systems and treatment through IAS

Differently from the (formal) Article 3 "compliance assessment", this calculation takes into

account all the urban waste water that is adequately connected to a collecting system or

addressed

via

IAS regardless of the proportion of waste water not collected/treated at all.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

The results of this assessment, made for 26 Member States, show that a very small percentage

(0.3%) of the total generated load is neither connected to collecting systems nor addressed

via

IAS.

Only SI and BG show a "distance to compliance" above 2%, which in any case is far below

the "non-compliance" rates:

•

14.9% in Bulgaria (88.4% official rate of non-compliance under Article 3, i.e.

compliance rate of 11.6%).

6.1% in Slovenia (43% official rate of non-compliance under Article 3, i.e.

compliance rate of 57%).

3.2.2 - Waste water connected, secondary treatment in place and performance

requirements met

This calculation only looks at the connected waste water, which should meet the requirement

of a secondary treatment (treatment level and performance). Thus, for this calculation the

waste water not connected or addressed

via

IAS is not considered.

This assessment shows a more positive result than the related compliance assessment mainly

due to the fact that in the latter a failure concerning Article 3 automatically entails a failure

under Article 4. This situation is particularly relevant in SI, BG and RO. There is also a

similar situation in the agglomerations with several treatment plants in which only one plant

does not meet the requirements of Article 4. As regards "distance to compliance", only the

load that is connected but not adequately treated as required under Article 4 is taken into

account.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

The "distance to compliance" at EU level in relation to the secondary treatment level

represents only about 1.8% of the total connected load. As regards treatment performance it

represents about 6.9% of the total connected load.

The difference in results between both concepts is particularly high in BG, CY, SI and RO.

Distance to compliance

Member State

Secondary treatment

performance not correct

(Rate of the total load

connected)

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Romania

Cyprus

16.3%

21.7%

23.3%

26.4%

Non-compliance under

Article 4

(Percentage)

85.9%

88.8%

52.5%

41.2%

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

In MT, the "distance to compliance" as regards treatment in place is 0%, but the compliance

assessment shows 100% "non-compliance" rate under Article 4. An explanation for this may

be the following: all treatment plants in MT are relatively new and they should theoretically

be in line with the requirement of the Directive but, due to an excess of farm manure

discharges into the collecting system, the performance requirements are not met. A reduction

in such discharges might solve the problem.

Why performance results do not always respond to the requirements of the treatment in

place?

If the performance results are below the treatment in place requirements, there might be

several explanations:

•

The waste water load or the volume entering the treatment plant is above its capacity

and, as a result, performance is not good. This is the case of Malta. In other cases, the

plant may be obsolete and should be renewed to be able to treat correctly the

generated waste water.

•

The treatment plant was new by the reported year and worked well, but not enough

samples were considered (Annex I. D.3 of the UWWTD) and the performance

requirements were not met.

•

Other situations not falling in the above categories, such as bad operation of the

treatment plant.

3.2.3 - Waste water connected, more stringent treatment in place and performance

requirements met

This calculation only looks at the waste water connected that should meet more stringent

treatment requirements and performance results

This assessment shows a more positive result than the compliance assessment mainly due to

the fact that in the latter a failure concerning Article 3 automatically entails a failure under

Articles 4 and 5. There is also a similar situation in the agglomerations with several treatment

plants in which only one does not meet the requirements of Article 5. As regards "distance to

compliance", only the load that is connected but not adequately treated as required under

Article 5 is taken into account.

The "distance to compliance" as regards more stringent treatment in place represents 7.9% of

the total connected load. As regards the performance requirements, it represents 8.3% of the

total connected load.

For this calculation the waste water not connected or addressed through IAS is not considered.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

The difference between compliance with Article 5 and "distance to compliance" is

particularly high for IT, LU, ES, SK, SI, RO, LV and BG. For MT, the explanation is the

same as for the previous point.

Distance to compliance

Member State

More stringent treatment

performance not correct

(Rate of the total load

connected)

Italy

Luxembourg

Slovenia

Spain

Slovakia

Slovenia

Romania

Latvia

Bulgaria

8.1%

22.4%

24.7%

28.1%

32.8%

46,1%

61.5%

64.3%

77.5%

Non-compliance under Article

(Percentage)

66.3%

58%

66.1%

62%

56.7%

66.1%

84.5%

100%

99.3%

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

Why in occasions the performance results are "right" but more stringent treatment

requirements are not met?

This is the case of Slovakia, Romania and Latvia. It is not an usual situation, which might be

explained as follows:

•

Bad reporting of the installation in place. MS have declared only a secondary

treatment, but in fact there is more stringent treatment in place.

High dilution of the incoming load. The concentration performance corresponding to

a more stringent treatment could be met by applying only a secondary treatment.

Whilst the first situation may simply be a reporting mistake, the second one, of more concern,

could mean the presence of a huge amount of clear water in the collecting systems, which

might lead to discharges before entering the treatment plant, if the urban waste water system

does not have enough capacity.

3.3 - Varying deadlines of the UWWTD

Most of the deadlines to meet different obligations set out by the UWWTD have expired.

Nevertheless, some deadlines have not yet expired for some of the countries that became

members of the EU in or after 2004

•

Cyprus: 31 December 2012, concerning agglomerations of 15,000 p.e. and below,

Bulgaria: 31 December 2014, concerning agglomerations of 10,000 p.e. and below,

Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia: 31 December 2015 concerning

agglomerations of 10,000 p.e. and below,

Romania: three pending deadlines, 31 December 2013, 2015 and 2018, concerning

various aspect of Articles 3, 4 and 5.

RO and CY are the only MS that had non-expired deadlines related to more stringent

treatment by the year reported upon.

In RO, by end of 2012, 61% of the urban waste water load must be collected or addressed

via

IAS (Article 3), 51% of the urban waste water load must be treated by secondary treatment

(Article 4) and 51% of the waste water load must be treated by more stringent treatment

(Article 5). The entire waste water load connected and adequately treated was taken into

account for the assessment of the "distance to compliance" for those expired deadlines. Given

that the targets set in those expired deadlines have not yet been achieved, the distance to

compliance related to targets set in the pending deadlines will necessarily be equal to 100%

for collection, treatments and performance. Due to this situation and the weight of RO in the

group of EU13 countries, the average distance to compliance for the various Articles

regarding EU13 is large, as can be seen in the graphs presented in the paragraphs below.

Croatia not considered

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

Some EU15 MS like FR, UK and IT designated late certain areas as sensitive for the purpose

of article 5 and the transitional periods of some of those sensitive areas have not expired yet.

3.3.1 - Connection to collecting systems and treatment through IAS

In LV, HU and SK, more than 98% of the urban waste water load is already correctly

collected or addressed

via

IAS. It can therefore be expected that the deadine for Article 3 for

those countries will be respected.

The objective is further away for SI, BG, CY and RO.

3.3.2 - Waste water connected, secondary treatment in place and performance met

In LV, SK and HU, more than 80% of the urban waste water load is already correctly treated

in a way that the performance requirements under Article 4 of the Directive are met.

The objective is further away for SI, CY, BG and RO.

In CY, it seems that secondary treatment is in place, but performance requirements are not

yet met.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

3.3.3 - Waste water connected, more stringent treatment in place and performance met

FR, UK and IT have still pending deadlines as regards some sensitive areas for Article 5.

Among these MS, UK is the country that is the furthest away from the implementation

objective: its sensitive areas under transitional period in 2012 were, by then, still far from

compliant with Article 5.

As explained above, there are only two MS among the EU-13 in which the "distance to

compliance" concerning more stringent treatment (implementation and performance) is

applicable: CY and RO.

In CY, already 100% of connected waste water receives more stringent treatment and meets

the performance requirements. In RO, as explained under point 3.3, "distance to compliance"

is still at 100%.

3.4 - Conclusions

Most of the EU-MS have correctly reported information under Article 15, even in cases in

which it was not officially required (pending deadlines). Applying the concept of "distance

to compliance" on this very large dataset shows in general a

more positive picture than the

result of the compliance assessment under the directive.

In practical terms, this means that

most of the MS are on good track to correctly implement the UWWTD.

The most relevant conclusions that can be drawn are the following:

Obligations for which the

deadlines have already expired

concern 26 MS and a total

generated load of 546 million p.e.. To fully comply with the Directive, the following

additional effort is required:

•

To collect and treat, or address

via

IAS, about 2 million p.e.,

which represents

about 0.3% of the total urban waste water generated load.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

•

For the urban waste water load already collected,

to apply secondary treatment on

about 10 million p.e.

(1.8% of the total collected load) and to correctly operate about

36 million p.e. (6.9% of the total collected load) in order to reach the performance

requirements under Article 4.

For the urban waste water load already collected,

to apply more stringent treatment

on about 24 million p.e.

(8.3% of the total collected load) and to correctly operate

about 25 million p.e. (9.4% of the total collected load) to reach the performance

requirements under Article 5.

Obligations that will have to be met when pending deadlines expire concern 10 MS and will

require the following additional effort:

•

to collect and treat, or address

via

IAS, about 9 million p.e.

which represents about

72% of the total urban waste water generated load.

For the urban waste water load already collected

to apply secondary treatment on

about 11 million p.e.

(85% of the total collected load) and to correctly operate about

11.5 million p.e. (88% of the total collected load), in order to reach the performance

requirements under Article 4.

For the urban waste water load already collected,

to apply more stringent treatment

on about 13.5 million p.e.

(40% of the total collected load) and to correctly operate

about 14 million p.e. (6.4% of the total collected load) to reach the performance

requirements under Article 5.

•

Caution

As regards expired and pending deadline, the load not collected or addressed via IAS is not taken into

account in the "distance to compliance" treatment targets. There are two reasons for that:

•

There is no information about the future destination of this load (connection or IAS). At this

stage, it is not possible to consider that it has to be treated in an urban waste water collective

treatment plant.

•

The information given is not sufficient to know if the treatment plant in place is already able

to welcome this supplementary load. If it is adequately designed the work to do is to connect

the buildings to a collecting system which could already exist or has to be created and not to

create new treatment capacity.

As a result of these two uncertainties, an unknown part of the 2 million p.e. for expired deadlines and

9 million p.e. for pending deadlines will have to be added in the "distance to compliant" secondary

and more stringent treatment objectives.

Most of the works that have to be completed by MS to comply with the Directive are covered

by the reports submitted by MS under Article 17 of the Directive. According to the

information provided in those reports, full compliance with the Directive requires additional

investments of about 22 billion EUR.

4 - Summary of assessment of Article 17 Report

The table below provides more detail information on what is described in chapter 3.2 of the

Urban Waste Water Treatment implementation report.

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel

kom (2016) 0105 - Ingen titel