Annex I To Summary Report

6th UWWTD implementation report
Technical assessment of information on the implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning Urban Waste Water Treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998
Situation as of 31 December 2007 or 31 December 2008.
Final report as of 8 August 2011.
Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).
Disclaimer: This document has been produced by a consultant for the European Commission, DG Environment. In general, it reflects data reported by Member States as of 31 December 2007 or in case more recent data was available as of 31 December 2008. This document does not necessarily represent the official position of the European Commission or of any Member State. Brussels, July 2011.
Table of Contents
1 2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND KEY CONCEPTS ........................................................... 16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 18 2.1 STATUS OF WASTE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE ......................................................... 19 2.2 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UWWTD .......................... 21 2.3 COMPARISON OF STATUS OF WASTE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMPLIANCE IN 5TH AND 6TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT ........................................................................................................ 24 3 BACKGROUND OF THIS REPORT....................................................................................... 26 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4 SCOPE OF THE URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT DIRECTIVE ............................................ 26 IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS AND DATA REQUEST 2009 ......................................................... 26 QUALITY AND MAIN INCONSISTENCIES OF DATA ................................................................... 28 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ..................................................................................................... 29
METHODOLOGY OF DATA EVALUATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS 30 4.1 4.2 PRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF WASTE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE ...................... 30 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES/TRANSITIONAL PERIODS ........................................................................................................................................... 30 4.3 APPLICATION OF INDIVIDUAL APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS (IAS) FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT (ARTICLE 3) ..................................................................................................................................... 32 4.4 HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DATE OF AND THE CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGNATION/REVIEW OF SA AND THEIR RELATED CSA (ARTICLE 5) .................................................................................. 32 4.5 PRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF WASTE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND TREATMENT IN BIG CITIES / BIG DISCHARGERS ................................................................................................................ 33
UWWTD IMPLEMENTATION IN EU MEMBER STATES ................................................. 34 5.1 IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS AND CATCHMENT OF SENSITIVE AREAS IN 27 MEMBER STATES 34 5.2 STATUS OF WASTE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN 26 MEMBER STATES.................................... 38 5.2.1 General Overview ........................................................................................................... 38 5.2.2 Status of waste water infrastructure ................................................................................ 41 5.3 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UWWTD IN 19 MEMBER STATES 44 5.3.1 General overview ............................................................................................................ 44 5.3.2 Assessment of compliance with the requirements of the UWWTD .................................... 45 5.4 STATUS OF URBAN WASTE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND TREATMENT IN BIG CITIES / BIG DISCHARGERS ................................................................................................................................... 51 5.5 COMPARISON OF STATUS OF WASTE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMPLIANCE IN 5TH AND 6TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT ........................................................................................................ 54 5.5.1 General overview ............................................................................................................ 54 5.5.2 Comparison of status of waste water infrastructure and compliance ............................... 54
ANNEX I: UWWTD IMPLEMENTATION IN EU-26 MEMBER STATES ......................... 62 6.1 AUSTRIA .............................................................................................................................. 62 6.1.1 General comments on data quality .................................................................................. 62 6.1.2 Receiving Areas .............................................................................................................. 62 6.1.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(4) areas ....................................... 62 6.1.4 Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers ...................................................... 63 6.2 BELGIUM ............................................................................................................................. 64
6.2.1 General comments on data quality .................................................................................. 64 6.2.2 Receiving Areas .............................................................................................................. 64 6.2.3 Agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas (Article 5 (1,2,3)) ................. 64 6.2.4 Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers ...................................................... 66 6.3 BULGARIA ........................................................................................................................... 66 6.3.1 General comments on data quality .................................................................................. 66 6.3.2 Receiving Areas .............................................................................................................. 67 6.3.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas .......................... 67 6.3.4 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas ............................................................ 67 6.3.5 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas ............................................................... 68 6.3.6 Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers ...................................................... 68 6.4 CYPRUS ............................................................................................................................... 68 6.4.1 General comments on data quality .................................................................................. 68 6.4.2 Receiving Areas .............................................................................................................. 69 6.4.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas .......................... 69 6.4.4 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas ............................................................ 70 6.4.5 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas ............................................................... 70 6.4.6 Waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers ....................................................... 71 6.5 CZECH REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................. 71 6.5.1 General comments on data quality .................................................................................. 71 6.5.2 Receiving Areas .............................................................................................................. 71 6.5.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) areas ....................................... 71 6.5.4 Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers ...................................................... 73 6.6 DENMARK ............................................................................................................................ 73 6.6.1 General comments on data quality .................................................................................. 73 6.6.2 Receiving Areas .............................................................................................................. 73 6.6.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) - areas .................................... 74 6.6.4 Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers ...................................................... 75 6.7 ESTONIA .............................................................................................................................. 75 6.7.1 General comments on data quality .................................................................................. 75 6.7.2 Receiving Areas .............................................................................................................. 76 6.7.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) areas ....................................... 76 6.7.4 Waste water treatment in big cities / big dischargers ...................................................... 76 6.8 FINLAND .............................................................................................................................. 77 6.8.1 General information on data quality ............................................................................... 77 6.8.2 Receiving Areas .............................................................................................................. 77 6.8.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) areas ....................................... 77 6.8.4 Waste water treatment in big cities / big dischargers ...................................................... 79 6.9 FRANCE ............................................................................................................................... 79 6.9.1 General information on data quality ............................................................................... 79 6.9.2 Receiving Areas .............................................................................................................. 79 6.9.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas .......................... 80 6.9.4 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, where Article 5(4) is applied .............. 81 6.9.5 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, where Article 5(2,3) is applied ........... 83 6.9.6 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas ............................................................... 85 6.9.7 Waste water treatment in big cities / big dischargers ...................................................... 86 6.10 GERMANY ............................................................................................................................ 88 6.10.1 General information on data quality ........................................................................... 88 6.10.2 Receiving Areas .......................................................................................................... 88 6.10.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(4) areas ..................................... 88 6.10.4 Waste water treatment in big cities / big dischargers .................................................. 89 6.11 GREECE ............................................................................................................................... 90
6.11.1 General comments on data quality .............................................................................. 90 6.11.2 Receiving areas ........................................................................................................... 90 6.11.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas ...................... 90 6.11.4 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas ........................................................ 92 6.11.5 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas .......................................................... 95 6.11.6 Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers .................................................. 96 6.12 HUNGARY ............................................................................................................................ 97 6.12.1 General information on data quality ........................................................................... 97 6.12.2 Receiving Areas .......................................................................................................... 97 6.12.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas (Article 5(2,3)) 98 6.12.4 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas ........................................................ 98 6.12.5 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas .......................................................... 99 6.12.6 Waste water treatment in big cities / big dischargers .................................................. 99 6.13 IRELAND .............................................................................................................................100 6.13.1 General comments on data quality .............................................................................100 6.13.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................100 6.13.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas .....................100 6.13.4 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas .......................................................102 6.13.5 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas .........................................................103 6.13.6 Waste water treatment in big cities / big dischargers .................................................104 6.14 ITALY .................................................................................................................................105 6.14.1 General comments on data quality .............................................................................105 6.14.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................105 6.14.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas .....................105 6.14.1 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, where Article 5(4) is applied .........107 6.14.2 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, where Article 5(2,3) is applied ......109 6.14.3 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas .........................................................117 6.14.4 Waste water treatment in big cities / big dischargers .................................................118 6.15 LATVIA ...............................................................................................................................119 6.15.1 General information on data quality ..........................................................................119 6.15.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................119 6.15.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) - areas ................................................119 6.15.4 Waste water treatment in big cities / big dischargers .................................................120 6.16 LITHUANIA .........................................................................................................................120 6.16.1 General information on data quality ..........................................................................120 6.16.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................120 6.16.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) - areas ................................................121 6.16.4 Waste water treatment in big cities ............................................................................122 6.17 LUXEMBOURG.....................................................................................................................122 6.17.1 General information on data quality ..........................................................................122 6.17.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................123 6.17.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) areas...............................123 6.17.4 Waste water treatment in big cities ............................................................................124 6.18 MALTA ...............................................................................................................................124 6.18.1 General comments on data quality .............................................................................124 6.18.2 Receiving areas..........................................................................................................125 6.18.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas .....................125 6.18.4 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas .......................................................126 6.18.5 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas .........................................................127 6.18.6 Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers .................................................129 6.19 THE NETHERLANDS.............................................................................................................129
6.19.1 General comments on data quality .............................................................................129 6.19.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................129 6.19.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) areas ................................................129 6.19.4 Waste water treatment in big cities ............................................................................131 6.20 POLAND ..............................................................................................................................131 6.20.1 General comments on data quality .............................................................................131 6.20.2 Receiving areas ..........................................................................................................131 6.20.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and Article 5(4) areas .........................132 6.20.4 Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers .................................................133 6.21 PORTUGAL ..........................................................................................................................133 6.21.1 General comments on data quality .............................................................................133 6.21.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................134 6.21.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas .....................134 6.21.4 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas .......................................................136 6.21.5 Agglomerations discharging into less sensitive areas ................................................138 6.21.6 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas .........................................................139 6.21.7 Waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers ..................................................140 6.22 ROMANIA............................................................................................................................141 6.22.1 General comments on data quality .............................................................................141 6.22.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................142 6.22.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) areas ................................................142 6.22.4 Waste water treatment in big cities ............................................................................143 6.23 SLOVAKIA ...........................................................................................................................143 6.23.1 General comments on data quality .............................................................................143 6.23.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................143 6.23.3 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas .......................................................144 6.23.4 Waste water treatment in big cities ............................................................................145 6.24 SLOVENIA ...........................................................................................................................146 6.24.1 General information on data quality ..........................................................................146 6.24.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................146 6.24.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas .....................146 6.24.4 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas .......................................................147 6.24.5 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas .........................................................148 6.24.6 Waste water treatment in big cities ............................................................................148 6.25 SPAIN .................................................................................................................................148 6.25.1 General comments on data quality .............................................................................148 6.25.2 Receiving areas ..........................................................................................................149 6.25.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas applying Article 5(2,3)149 6.25.4 Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers .................................................151 6.26 SWEDEN..............................................................................................................................151 6.26.1 General information on data quality ..........................................................................151 6.26.2 Receiving Areas .........................................................................................................152 6.26.3 Agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas ........................................152 6.26.4 Waste water treatment in big cities ............................................................................153 7 ANNEX II: LIST OF DESIGNATED SENSITIVE AREAS/CATCHMENT AREAS OF SENSITIVE AREAS IN THE MEMBER STATES ........................................................................154 8 ANNEX III: WASTE WATER TREATMENT OF EUROPEAN BIG CITIES/ BIG DISCHARGERS ...............................................................................................................................155
List of Figures
Figure 1: Average share of generated load collected in collecting systems, treated by secondary treatment and more stringent treatment for EU-15. ....................................... 20 Figure 2: Average share of generated load collected in collecting sys tems, treated by secondary treatment and more stringent treatment for EU-12. ....................................... 20 Figure 3: Best available waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers > 150,000 p.e. in EU-27 (loads per treatment category in % of total generated load). ........................... 21 Figure 4: Average compliance rates with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 for Member States for which the deadline for implementation has expired by the date of reporting (solid bars: subjected load, transparent bars: compliant load) in relation to the total generated load. .............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 5: Average compliance rates with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 for Member States for which the deadline for implementation has expired by the date of reporting (solid bars: subjected load, transparent bars: compliant load) in relation to the total subjected load. ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Overview of sensitive areas and catchment areas of sensitive areas in EU -27 (as reported by Member States) for reference year 31 December 2007 or 31 December 2008. .............................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 7: Frequency of agglomeration sizes (left) and generated load (right) of agglomeration sizes in EU-27 (2,000 to 10,000 p.e.; 10,001 to 15,000 p.e.; 15,001 to 150,000 p.e.; > 150,000 p.e.). ........................................................................................ 40 Figure 8: Frequency (left) and generated load (right) of agglomeration sizes in EU -15 (solid bars) and EU-12 (transparent bars) for 2,000 to 10,000 p.e.; 10,001 to 15,000 p.e.; 15,001 to 150,000 p.e.; > 150,000 p.e. .......................................................................... 41 Figure 9: Share of total generated load (p.e.) collected in collecting system in EU -27. .......... 42 Figure 10: Share of total generated load (p.e.) treated by secondary treatment (treatment installation in place, monitoring results comply with secondary treatment requirements). ................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 11: Share of total generated load (p.e.) treated by more stringent treatment (treatment installation in place, monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment requirements). ................................................................................................ 43 Figure 12: Average share of generated load collected in collecting systems, treated by secondary treatment and more stringent treatment for EU-15. ....................................... 43 Figure 13: Average share of generated load collected in collecting systems, treated by secondary treatment and more stringent treatment for EU-12. ....................................... 44 Figure 14: Assessment of compliance with Article 3 (in relation to the generated load subject to compliance with Article 3) for 18 MS subject to compliance. .......................... 46 Figure 15: Countrywise compliance with Article 3. Symbol size proportional to waste water load generated. Average compliance (by generated load) indicated by red dot. ............ 47 Figure 16: Assessment of compliance with Article 4 (in relation to the generated load subject to compliance with Article 4) for 19 MS subject to compliance. .......................... 47 Figure 17: Country wise compliance with Article 4. Symbol size proportional to waste water load subject to Article 4. Average compliance (by subject load) indicated by red dot. .... 48
Figure 18: Assessment of compliance with Article 5 (in relation to the generated load subject to compliance with Article 5) for for 18 MS subject to compliance. ..................... 48 Figure 19: Countrywise compliance with Article 5. Symbol size proportional to wastewater load subject to Article 5. Average compliance (by subject load) indicated by red dot. .... 49 Figure 20: Share of generated load compliant with Article 3, 4 and Article 5 in EU-27. ......... 50 Figure 21: Assessment of compliance rates with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 for Member States for which the deadline for implementation has expired by the date of reporting (solid bars: subjected load, transparent bars: compliant load) in relation to the total generated load. ................................................................................................ 50 Figure 22: Assessment of compliance rates with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 for Member States for which the deadline for implementation has expired by the date of reporting (solid bars: subjected load, transparent bars: compliant load) in relation to the total subjected load. ................................................................................................. 51 Figure 23: Best available waste water treatment in EU-27 big cities (in % of total generated load) discharging into different receiving areas (Article 5(2,3) areas, Article 5(4) areas and normal areas). ......................................................................................................... 53 Figure 24: Best available waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers > 150,000 p.e. located in different receiving areas in EU-27 (loads per treatment category in % of total generated load). ................................................................................................. 54 Figure 25: Average progress of waste water infrastructure in place reported for Q2007 and Q2009 for 10 MS of EU-15: AT, BE, DK, FI, FR, DE, LU, NL, PT and SE in relation to total generated load. ...................................................................................................... 55 Figure 26: Average progress of waste water infrastructure in place reported for Q2007 and Q2009 for 7 MS of EU-12: CY, EE, HU, LT, RO, SK and SI in relation to total generated load. .............................................................................................................. 55 Figure 27: Progress in collecting system in place (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the total generated load (Legend: a) not reported in Q2007). ................ 57 Figure 28: Progress in secondary treatment installations in place (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the total generated load (Legend: a) not reported in Q2007). ...................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 29: Progress in secondary treatment installations with complying monitoring results in place (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the total generated load (Legend: a) not reported in Q2007). ............................................................................... 58 Figure 30: Progress in more stringent treatment installations in place (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the total generated load (Legend: a) not reported in Q2007). ...................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 31: Progress in more stringent treatment installations with complying monitoring results in place (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the total generated load (Legend: a) not reported in Q2007). ...................................................... 59 Figure 32: Progress in compliance rates for Article 3 UWWTD (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th
Implementation Report) in % of the subjected load. (Legend: a) no data included in 5th implementation report and b) not subject to compliance with this Article) ................ 60 Figure 33: Progress in compliance rates for Article 4 UWWTD (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) for EU-15 and EU-12 in % of the subjected load (Legend: a) no data included in 5th implementation report and b) not subject to compliance with this Article) ..................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 34: Progress in compliance rates for Article 5 UWWTD (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) for EU-15 and EU-12 in % of the subjected load (Legend: a) no data included in 5th implementation report and b) not subject to compliance with this Article) ..................................................................................................................... 61
List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of final data deliveries from Member States for UWWTD Q2009. ............. 27 Table 2: Reference dates of data reported in 2009 reporting exercise (Q2009) under Article 15 UWWTD. ................................................................................................................... 28 Table 3: Example for presentation of data for the current status of implementation of the Directive throughout the EU. .......................................................................................... 30 Table 4: Example for presentation of data for assessment of the implementation of the Directive with regards its requirements and deadlines/ transitional periods. .................. 31 Table 5: Overview on sensitive areas and catchment areas of sensitiv e areas in EU-27 Member States (reference date 31 December 2007 or 31 December 2008). ................. 37 Table 6: Number and generated load of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. of 26 Member States. . 39 Table 7: Comparison of total number and generated load of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. of 18 Member States, for which data was available from Q2007 and Q2009. .................... 40 Table 8: Number and size of big cities / big dischargers in different receiving areas in EU 27. .................................................................................................................................. 52 Table 9: Progress (%) from Q2007 to Q2009 in collecting systems in place, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment in place as well as complying monitoring results for those 17 Member States, for which information was available (green highlights increase of percentage, red shows decrease of percentage, orange: no changes). CY did not yet provide monitoring data as regards secondary treatment and more stringent treatment installations. ........................................................................... 56 Table 10: Progress (%) from Q2007 to Q2009 in compliance with Article 3, 4 and 5 for those 11 Member States, for which information was available (green highlights increase of percentage, red shows decrease of percentage, orange no changes). ........ 59 Table 11: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Austria reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .............................................................................................................................. 63 Table 12: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Austria reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ................................................................................ 63 Table 13: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Belgium reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................................................................ 65 Table 14: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Belgium reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ................................................................................ 65 Table 15: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Bulgaria reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................................................................ 67 Table 16: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Bulgaria discharging into sensitive areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008............................................................................ 68 Table 17: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Bulgaria discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008............................................................................ 68 Table 18: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Cyprus as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................................................................................................ 69 Table 19: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Cyprus discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................................................ 70
10
Table 20: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Cyprus discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................................................ 71 Table 21: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Czech Republic as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................................................................ 72 Table 22: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Czech Republic reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................ 73 Table 23: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Denmark reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................................................................................................ 74 Table 24: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Denmark reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ................................................................................ 75 Table 25: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Estonia reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .............................................................................................................................. 76 Table 26: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Finland reported for reference date 31 December 2005. .............................................................................................................................. 78 Table 27: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Finland reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ................................................................................ 79 Table 28: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................................................................ 80 Table 29: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into different receiving areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............... 81 Table 30: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas where Article 5(4) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .................... 82 Table 31: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas where Article 5(4) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................................................................ 82 Table 32: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas (P) where Article 5(2,3) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ....... 83 Table 33: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas (P) where Article 5(2,3) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ........................................................................................................ 84 Table 34: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas (N and P) where Article 5(2,3) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ....... 84 Table 35: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas (N and P) where Article 5(2,3) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ................................................................................ 85 Table 36: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................ 85 Table 37: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ......................... 86 Table 38: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Germany as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................................................................ 89 Table 39: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Germany reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ................................................................................ 89
11
Table 40: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .............................................................................................................................. 91 Table 41: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece reported for reference date 31 December 2007 ................................................................................. 92 Table 42: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into sensitive areas (N) reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................................................ 93 Table 43: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into sensitive areas (N) reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ....................... 94 Table 44: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into sensitive areas (N and P) reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ........................................................ 94 Table 45: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into sensitive areas (N and P) reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............. 95 Table 46: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2007............................................................................ 95 Table 47: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................. 96 Table 48: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Hungary as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................................................................................................ 98 Table 49: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Hungary discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................................................ 99 Table 50: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Hungary discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................................................ 99 Table 51: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................................................................... 101 Table 52: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .............................................................................. 102 Table 53: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................... 102 Table 54: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ...................... 103 Table 55: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................... 103 Table 56: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ....................... 104 Table 57: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................................................................................................................ 106 Table 58: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .............................................................................. 107 Table 59: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into Article 5(4) areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................... 108 Table 60: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into Article 5(4) areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ......................... 109
12
Table 61: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.......................................................................... 109 Table 62: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............................. 110 Table 63: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion N and P) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................... 111 Table 64: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion N and P) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007 111 Table 65: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion N) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ...................................................... 112 Table 66: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion N) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ......... 113 Table 67: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion P) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ...................................................... 113 Table 68: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion P) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ......... 114 Table 69: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion b) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ...................................................... 114 Table 70: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion b) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......... 115 Table 71: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion c) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ...................................................... 116 Table 72: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion c) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......... 117 Table 73: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into normal areasas reported for reference date 31 December 2007.......................................................................... 117 Table 74: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007............................... 118 Table 75: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Latvia as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................................................................... 120 Table 76: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Lithuania as reported for reference date 30 December 2007. .......................................................................................................... 121 Table 77: Present status of Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Lithuania as reported for reference date 30 December 2007. .............................................................................. 122 Table 78: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Luxembourg reported for reference date 28 December 2008. .......................................................................................................... 123 Table 79: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Luxembourg reported for reference date 28 December 2008.......................................................................... 124 Table 80: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................................................................................ 126 Table 81: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .............................................................................. 126
13
Table 82: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta discharging into sensitive areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008.......................................................................... 127 Table 83: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta discharging into sensitive areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .................................. 127 Table 84: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008.......................................................................... 128 Table 85: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .................................. 128 Table 86: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in the Netherlands reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................................................................... 130 Table 87: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in the Netherlands reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................... 130 Table 88: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Poland reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................................................................................ 133 Table 89: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Poland reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .............................................................................. 133 Table 90: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................................................................... 135 Table 91: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.......................................................................... 136 Table 92: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into sensitive areas a s reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................... 136 Table 93: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ...................... 137 Table 94: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into sensitive areas according to GIS-Check (while reported as discharging into normal area) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.......................................................................... 137 Table 95: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into sensitive areas discharging into sensitive areas according to GIS-Check (while reported as discharging into normal area) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................................................................... 138 Table 96: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into less sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................... 138 Table 97: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into less sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ............... 139 Table 98: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................... 140 Table 99: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007. ....................... 140 Table 100: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Romania reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................................................................... 142 Table 101: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Slovakia reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .......................................................................................................... 144
14
Table 102: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Slovakia reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .............................................................................. 145 Table 103: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Slovenia reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................................................................... 147 Table 104: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Slovenia discharging into sensitive areas reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................... 147 Table 105: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Slovenia discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2007. .......................................................... 148 Table 106: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Spain reported for reference date 31 December 2008. ............................................................................................................................ 150 Table 107: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Spain reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .............................................................................. 151 Table 108: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Sweden reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .......................................................................................................... 152 Table 109: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Sweden reported for reference date 31 December 2008. .............................................................................. 153
15
1 List of abbreviations and key concepts

EU-27 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia and United Kingdom Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and United Kingdom
EU-12 EU-15
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE
Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Germany Denmark Estonia Greece Spain Finland France Hungary Ireland Italy Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Sweden
16
SI SK UK
Slovenia Slovakia United Kingdom
BOD5 COD CSA EEC EU GIS IAS ID MS N P p.e. Q2007 Q2009 SA UWWTD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Chemical Oxygen Demand Catchment of Sensitive Area European Economic Community European Union Geographical Information System Individual Appropriate Systems Identification Number Member State Nitrogen Phosphorus Population Equivalent Reporting exercise of the UWWTD with reference year 2005/2006, also UWWTD Questionnaire 2007 Reporting exercise of the UWWTD with reference year 2007/2008, also UWWTD Questionnaire 2009 Sensitive Area Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
17
2 Executive summary
The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC, UWWTD) is one of the legislative core elements of water protection in Europe. Adopted in the year 1991 it regulates discharges of municipal waste water, and specifies the kind of treatment that must be provided. Principally, but not exclusively, the Directive requires that all European agglomerations with a size of more than 2,000 population equivalents (p.e.) are equipped with collecting and treatment systems for their waste waters. The term "population equivalent" is used in the UWWTD in order to explain the average daily emission of one person having a five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of 60g oxygen/day. Based on this specific value the incoming load to a waste water treatment facility can be expressed in population equivalents. Besides the requirement for establishing collecting systems for waste water, the Directive provides for biological waste water treatment (secondary treatment) to significantly reduce the biodegradable pollution in waste water. In the so-called sensitive areas (i.e. those suffering from eutrophication or used for other purposes such as bathing, drinking water abstraction, etc.), and their related catchments, more stringent treatment is required to eliminate nutrients (mainly nitrogen and/or phosphorus) or bacteriological pollution. The present report reflects the situation of waste water treatment at the reference date 31 December 2007 or 31 December 2008, based on data reported by Member States in the 2009 reporting exercise (UWWTD Questionnaire 2009, Q2009) under Article 15 of the Directive. For EU Member States for which the deadlines expired in 2005 (hereinafter referred to as EU-15 Member States1) waste water collection and treatment has to be in place for all agglomerations within the scope of the Directive. For those EU Member States, which have acceded to the European Union in 2004 and 2007 enlargements (hereinafter referred to as EU-12 Member States2), some transitional periods have been granted for specific agglomerations on the basis of the size of agglomerations and the nature of the discharge area. As for the reference year of this report, certain interim deadlines have expired in CZ, MT, PO, SK and LT. Due to pending transitional periods compliance was not yet assessed for seven Member States: BG, CY, EE, HU, LV, RO and SI. The report serves two different purposes: On the one side it summarizes the current state of waste water treatment in the EU on what concerns infrastructure for waste water collection and treatment as reported by the Member States. On the other hand it assesses the implementation as regards the requirements laid down in the Directive. This report follows the five reports on the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, which have been published by the European Commission since 1998.
1
EU-15 refers to Member States being in the EU before the 2004 enlargement: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and United Kingdom. EU-12 refers to Member States who acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007 enlargements: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.
18
Since 2007 the reporting under Article 15 of the UWWTD follows a new standardised approach, which was jointly developed by the European Commission, the European Environment Agency and Member States and which was set-up in line with reporting principles under the Water Information System for Europe (WISE). Out of 27 Member States, 26 completed the reporting exercise 2009 in the agreed way and provided a complete dataset (Q2009) at the latest by June 2010. United Kingdom did not send a final dataset by this date; consequently this report only describes the situation of 26 Member States (see section 2.2 and Table 1). For the reference date 2007/2008 26 Member States reported 22,626 agglomerations with a size of more than 2,000 p.e., producing a total generated load of around 550 million p.e.. These agglomerations are located either in normal areas for which secondary treatment is required, or in sensitive areas or related catchments of sensitive areas, where more stringent treatment is required. An assessment of waste water infrastructure was made for 26 Member States which provided data, while compliance with the Directive requirements was only assessed for those 19 Member States for which all or specific interim target deadlines had already expired by the years 2007 or 2008. Compliance was not yet assessed due to pending transitional periods as regards Article 3, 4 and 5 UWWTD for 7 Member States: BG, CY, EE, HU, LV, RO and SI.
2.1 Status of waste water infrastructure in place

Figure 1 and 2 indicate the average share of the total generated load collected in collecting systems, as well as treated by secondary treatment and more stringent treatment 3 installations for EU-15 and EU-12. The figures do only reflect the actual infrastructure in place as reported by Member States and do not give any information about compliance with the requirements of the Directive. The status of waste water infrastructure for EU-15 (see Figure 1) can be described as follows: Waste water collecting systems is in place for 99 % of the total polluting load. Secondary treatment installations are in place for 96 % of the load and reported to work adequately showing complying monitoring results for 89 % of it. More stringent treatment installations are in place for 88% of the load and reported to work adequately showing complying monitoring results for 79% of it. Figure 2 shows the status of waste water infrastructure for EU-12: Waste water collecting systems is in place for 65 % of the total generated load. Secondary treatment installations are in place for 48 % of the load and reported to work adequately showing complying monitoring results for 39 % of it. More stringent treatment installations are in place for 27% of the generated load and reported to work adequately showing complying monitoring results for 24% of it.
Only 14 out of EU-15 Member States are being covered in this report, as United Kingdom did not manage to provide a final dataset until June 2010. In order to follow the common terminology, EU-15 is used in this report to describe the situation of those Member States being part of the European Union before the 2004 enlargement process (and consequently EU-27 for all Member States), but it needs to be kept in mind that UK is not included in the description and assessment of this repo rt due to the late delivery of their dataset.
19
Figure 1: Average share of generated load collected in collecting systems, treated by secondary treatment and more stringent treatment for EU-15.
When expressing waste water infrastructure in place as average percentage of the total generated load collected in collecting systems, treated by secondary and more stringent treatment, the figures are the following: Collecting systems in place: 99% EU-15, 65% EU-12 Secondary treatment in place: 96% (working adequately: 89%) for EU-15, 48% (working adequately: 39%) for EU-12 More stringent treatment in place: 88% (working adequately: 79%) for EU-15, 27% (working adequately: 24%) for EU-12 As reported for 26 Member States (data for collecting systems) and 25 Member States (data for secondary treatment and more stringent treatment installations) in 2007/2008. BG did not provide data as regards secondary and more stringent treatment installations as well as related monitoring results. Information was received on the situation of 586 big cities / big dischargers (i.e. agglomerations of at least 150,000 p.e., or clusters of agglomerations above this threshold that have been properly reported). These represent the most important stressors to the aquatic environment. Together they generate a load of around 248 Mio. p.e..
20
Figure 3 presents the best available treatment installations in the reported big cities / big dischargers: Installations for more stringent treatment are already in place for 77.3% of the total generated load. 12.0% of the total generated load is treated with secondary treatment only, 1.2% with primary treatment only and 5.7% of the total generated load of big cities is collected, but not treated. 2.0% of the total generated load is treated in individual appropriate systems and for 1.8% of the total generated load of big cities collecting waste water systems are missing.
Figure 3: Best available waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers > 150,000 p.e. in EU-27 (loads per treatment category in % of total generated load).
2.2 Assessment of compliance with the requirements of the UWWTD

The UWWTD sets staged deadlines of 1998, 2000 and 2005 for all EU-15 Member States, depending on the size of the waste water discharge and the characteristics of the affected water: Agglomerations beyond 10,000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas and catchments of sensitive areas by 31.12.1998. Larger agglomerations beyond 15,000 p.e. discharging into normal areas by 31. 12. 2000. All other agglomerations beyond 2,000 p.e. by 31.12.2005. The deadlines apply to the implementation of waste water collecting systems (Article 3 of the Directive), secondary treatment (Article 4 of the Directive) and more stringent treatment in sensitive areas and their catchment areas (Article 5 of the Directive): For EU-12 staged transition periods were negotiated as part of the Accession Treaties, obliging those Member States to comply with the Directive by different dates. By the reference year for this report the deadlines for implementation of the requirements of the UWWTD (as highlighted above) had completely expired in all EU-15 Member States. Regarding EU-12 Member States, certain interim deadlines had expired in CZ, MT, PO, SK and LT.
21
Compliance was not yet assessed due to pending transitional periods as regards Article 3, 4 and 5 UWWTD for seven Member States: BG, CY, EE, HU, LV, RO and SI. In CY, despite the fact that 31 December 2008 is an interim deadline, there was no obligation of compliance for the related agglomerations for this report, as the reference year for data reported from CY was 31 December 2007. For the reporting exercise 2009 the following interim deadlines were taken into account for EU-12 MS for the first time: By 31 December 2007 LT had to be compliant with Article 4 and Article 5(2) for all agglomerations > 10,000 p.e.. For MT the final deadline to apply with Article 3 expired on 31 October 2006, the final deadline to apply with Article 4 on 31 March 2007. By 31 December 2008 91% of the total biodegradable load in SK needed to be compliant with the requirements of Article 3 and 4. Consequently the following 19 MS (out of the 26 Member States which reported timely in the agreed format) were subject to a compliance check against the requirements of the Directive: EU-15: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden EU-12: Czech Republic, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia (for certain interim deadlines). The average compliance rates expressed as % of the total generated load are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5, which also highlight the share of the load for which compliance is required (solid bars) and the share of the load for which compliance was achieved (transparent bars), in relation to the total generated load. The average compliance rates (%) reflect the share of the total generated load (p.e.) subject to compliance according to the requirements of the Directive as well as the share of the generated load (p.e.) which is currently compliant with the Directive requirements for Article 3, 4 and 5. For Article 3 (collecting systems), the deadline is expired and therefore compliance is required for 18 Member States, i.e. 471,000,000 p.e covering 95.4% of the total generated load; it has been achieved for 88.6% of it. For Article 4 (secondary treatment), compliance is required for 19 Member States and 457,000,000 p.e. covering 92.6% of the total generated load and achieved for 72.2% of it. For Article 5 (more stringent treatment), compliance is required for 18 Member States and 249,000,000 p.e covering 50.3% of the total generated load and achieved for 37.9% of it.
22
Figure 4: Average compliance rates with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 for Member States for which the deadline for implementation has expired by the date of reporting (solid bars: subjected load, transparent bars: compliant load) in relation to the total generated load.
When expressing the average compliance rates not as percentage of the total generated load, but as percentage of the load for which compliance is required the figures for compliance with the requirements of the Directive are the following:
Figure 5: Average compliance rates with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 for Member States for which the deadline for implementation has expired by the date of reporting (solid bars: subjected load, transparent bars: compliant load) in relation to the total subjected load.
Compliance with Article 3 in relation to subjected load: 92.8% Compliance with Article 3 required for the following 18 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden Compliance with Article 4 in relation to subjected load: 78.0% Compliance with Article 4 required for the following 19 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden
23
Compliance with Article 5 in relation to subjected load: 75.4 % Compliance with Article 5 required for the following 18 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden
2.3 Comparison of status of waste water infrastructure and compliance in 5th and 6th Implementation Report
In order to assess the progress in the status of waste water infrastructure and compliance with the requirements of the UWWTD, the data reported for the 5th Implementation Report (reference years 2005 or 2006) were compared with data reported for this Report. As BG, CZ, ES, GR, IE, IT, MT and PL (which did not report timely and in the agreed format) as well as LV (which did not report in the agreed format, but only on the basis of urban waste water treatment plants) were not covered by the 5th Implementation Report, data of those nine Member States could not be included in the comparison. The following 17 Member States, for which data from the 5th Implementation Report were available, were taken into account for the comparison: AT, BE, CY, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, HU, LT, LU, NL, PT, RO, SK, SI and SE. The average progress in waste water treatment installations in place shows for 10 MS of EU-15 AT, BE, DK, FI, FR, DE, LU, NL, PT and SE for which this comparison could be elaborated, that there were no major differences for the average number of collecting systems as well as secondary treatment installations in place. On the other hand, the average progress of installations for more stringent treatment installations with complying monitoring results increased by 5 % of the total generated load of EU-15 Member States. For those 7 MS of EU-12 (CY, EE, HU, LT, RO, SK and SI) for which this comparison could be elaborated, a slight increase in the average share of generated load collected in collecting systems can be seen, while monitoring results of secondary treatment installations have improved. The average share of generated load treated by more stringent treatment installations remained practically at the same level as reported in the previous reporting cycle (around 24% of the total generated load). If the comparison is done at individual Member States levels, it can be seen that no major progresses have been achieved since the publication of the last Implementation Report for the collection systems for waste water in place, while secondary treatment and more stringent treatment installations with complying monitoring results show significant differences in the comparison of the previous reporting cycle and the current Implementation Report for some Member States: For the total generated load collected in collecting systems in place, the main changes as per Member State can be presented as follows: CY, HU, PT, RO and SI: increase of collected load ranging between 2.2% to 3.5%. BE: decrease of collected load by 5.1%. The comparison of secondary treatment installations in place as well as complying monitoring results with secondary treatment showed the following progress: SI and BE: considerable improvements of secondary treatment installations (plus 10.60% for SI, plus 19.8% for BE). FI, FR, SK and SI: improved complying monitoring results with secondary treatment ranging between 9.0% to 15.4% of the total generated load, BE shows improved monitoring results by plus 20.4%.
24
EE: secondary treatment installations downgraded for minus 6.50% of the total generated load. LU and LT: complying monitoring results with secondary treatment were reported with minus 9.50% for LU and minus 10.90% for LT.
As regards more stringent treatment installations and complying monitoring results with more stringent treatment it can be concluded that CY (plus 19.70%), EE (plus 12.50%), FR (plus 23.70%), LT (plus 11.50%) and BE (plus 26.9%) considerably improved their waste water infrastructure FI (plus 5.40%), FR (plus 20.30%), BE (plus 20.5%) and SI (plus 34.40%) show improvements in the waste water load with complying monitoring results for more stringent treatment HU (minus 10.60%) reported decreases in installations for more stringent treatment HU (minus 5.50%), LU (minus 19.90%) and SE (minus 18.80%) lowered their share of generated load with complying monitoring results with more stringent treatment If the compliance rates with the requirements of Article 3, 4 and 5 are compared, it can be seen that Besides the decrease of compliance for PT (minus 6.95%), BE (minus 27.9%) and for SK (minus 50.7%), the compliance rates for Article 3 in % of the subjected load do not show any major chances. Improved compliance with secondary treatment requirements according to Article 4 can be seen for FIN (11.66%), a considerable decrease in compliance was assessed for LU (minus 38.60%) and SK (minus 30.8%), a small decrease for PT (minus 5.30%). Compliance rates with more stringent treatment requirements increased for DK (6.18%), FI (66.30%), FR (14.50%), LU (6.79%) and SE (7.09%).
25
3 Background of this report

3.1 Scope of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) is one of the legislative core elements of water protection in Europe. Adopted in the year 1991 it regulates discharges of municipal waste water and specifies the kind of treatment that must be provided. The Directive mostly applies to agglomerations generating a pollution load of more than 2,000 p.e. 22,626 agglomerations generate an organic pollution load of approximately 620 4 million p.e. all over Europe and have to be equipped with collecting and secondary treatment systems for their urban waste waters. Furthermore, the Directive provides for the designation of sensitive areas (mostly sensitivity to eutrophication due to nitrogen and/or phosphorus) and application of more stringent treatment to urban waste waters collected in these areas and their relevant catchment areas. The time schedule for achieving the environmental objectives as stated in the Directive depends on the amount of pollution load of the respective agglomerations as well as on the characteristics of the recipient waters. For EU-15 Member States the main milestones for implementing the Directive expired in the year 1998 (more stringent treatment for agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas), in the year 2000 (secondary treatment for agglomerations with more than 15,000 p.e. discharging into normal area) and in the year 2005 (collecting system and secondary treatment for agglomerations between 2,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. depending on the type of receiving water). For the new EU-12 Member States in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in the Mediterranean region, staged transitional periods have been set in a clear and legally binding way within the Accession Treaties. In principle these transitional periods do not exceed the year 2015; only in Romania smaller agglomerations (with less than 10,000 p.e.) have to comply with the Directive by the end of 2018. At the same time, considerable financial support is available with the EU Cohesion Policy to partly address the necessary planning and infrastructure needs of the respective Member States.
3.2 Implementation reports and data request 2009

At regular intervals the European Commission elaborates implementation reports on the situation of waste water treatment and the progress of implementing the UWWTD in the European Union. So far, five Implementation Reports have been published since the year 5 1998. The reports are based on data reported by Member States through questionnaires.
As United Kingdom did not send a final dataset until June 2010, for the reference date 2007/2008 26 Member States reported 22,626 agglomerations with a size of more than 2,000 p.e., producing a total generated load of around 550 million p.e.. Implementation Reports are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterurbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htm.
26
The Commission by letter requested data on waste water collection and treatment under Article 15(4) of the Directive, based on an electronic questionnaire (Q2009). The Directive sets out a timeline of 6 months for the Member States, i.e. the Questionnaire should have been returned to the European Commission by 7 January 2010. In order to give Member States more time to provide their datasets, the European Commission agreed on an extension until 30 April 2010, respectively 30 June 2010. 9 Member States (AT, EE, FR, HU, LU, RO, SE, SI and SK) provided a first reply to the Commission`s letter until the end of 2009. Furthermore, 3 Member States (ES, EL and LV) provided their first reply until the deadline of 7 January 2010. In total, 16 Member States made their first data submission within the extended deadline of 30 April 2010; additional 10 Member States provided their data set until 30 June 2010. Only two Member States (AT and NL) submitted their dataset in such a quality that no further corrections and / or modifications were required. Due to the fact that for all other Member States a number of amendments and technical corrections of the datasets were required in order to fit the agreed format, several re-submissions and correction rounds took place, and most of the final datasets were only finalized between March and May 2010. Italy provided its final data set in June 2010. United Kingdom did not send a final dataset until this date.
MS AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU Date of first submission 2009/12/23 2010/02/11 2010/03/16 2010/01/20 2010/05/04 2010/04/16 2010/03/17 2009/12/28 2010/01/06 2010/01/07 2010/03/26 2009/12/23 2009/12/31 Date of final submission 2009/12/23 2010/05/21 2010/03/16 2010/04/28 2010/05/28 2010/05/07 2010/04/27 2010/03/15 2010/05/28 2010/04/28 2010/04/20 2010/05/05 2010/05/03 MS IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK Date of first submission 2010/01/08 2010/02/16 2010/01/12 2009/12/17 2010/01/05 2010/01/25 2010/03/16 2010/04/09 2010/03/31 2009/12/03 2009/12/23 2009/12/22 2009/12/22 Date of final submission 2010/04/29 2010/06/21 2010/03/17 2010/04/02 2010/03/31 2010/04/29 2010/03/16 2010/05/31 2010/04/30 2010/05/03 2010/04/28 2010/03/18 2010/05/03
Table 1: Overview of final data deliveries from Member States for UWWTD Q2009.
The reference date of reporting was 31 December 2007 or in case more recent information was available 31 December 2008.
The letter was sent out to Member States on 08 July 2009.
27
MS AT BE BG CY CZ DK EE EL FI
Reference date of reporting 2008/12/31 2008/12/31 2008/12/31 2007/12/31 2008/12/31 2007/12/31 2007/12/31 2007/12/31 2007/12/31
MS FR DE HU IE IT LV LT LU MT
Reference date of reporting 2008/12/31 2008/12/31 2007/12/31 2007/12/31 2007/12/31 2007/12/31 2007/12/30 2008/12/28 2008/12/31
MS NL PL PT RO SK SI ES SE
Reference date of reporting 2007/12/31 2008/12/31 2007/12/31 2007/12/31 2008/12/31 2007/12/31 2008/12/31 2008/12/31
Table 2: Reference dates of data reported in 2009 reporting exercise (Q2009) under Article 15 UWWTD.
3.3 Quality and main inconsistencies of data

Since 2007 the reporting under the Directive follows a new structured approach in line with reporting principles of WISE, which was jointly developed with the Member States between 2004 and 2007. Member States have put significant efforts in the reporting exercise under Article 15 and, consequently, the quality of data has been considerably enhanced since the publication of the previous reports. A considerable number of Member States reported timely and in good data quality. During the previous years Member States improved their national reporting systems and invested huge efforts in complying with the new reporting formats taking into account the principles of WISE. Information provided by the Member States through the Questionnaire 2009 (Q2009) was in many cases comprehensive and complete. AT and NL submitted their dataset in such a quality that no further corrections and / or modifications were required. Although several corrections and/or revisions as regards the submitted data were necessary for a major part of the Member States, no major errors and inconsistencies in the data reported by Member States were found for the datasets of CZ, CY, DK, EE, EL, IE, LV, LT, LU and SE. Nevertheless, for some Member States data reported through Q2009 was at least partly incomplete to the extent that the quality of the presentation of the waste water infrastructure in place and/or the assessment of the compliance according to the requirements of the Directive has been affected. The usual mistakes and inconsistencies in the data reported can be summarized as follows: Accounting imbalance among associated wastewater flows, such as: The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) does not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system or the components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%. This problem occurred in the following Member States: BE, BG, FR, DE, HU, IT, MT, PL, RO, SK, and SI. Discrepancies between the spatial information reported and the situation evident from submitted GIS files. This was the case for an important part of ES as well as partly for FR, PT and SI. Non-reporting of relevant parameters. The absence of appropriate information was assessed as non compliance.
28
There was a variety of other inaccuracies in the reported data. However these errors were less common and often country-specific. The usual mistakes and inconsistencies of data reported by Member States can be summarized as follows: Information on treatment type (generally missing in BG) and/or monitoring results partly missing for some agglomerations (FR, IT, PT, SK). Type of receiving water and/or discharge points were partly not reported (IT) Agglomerations applying Article 5(4) reported without incoming and discharged loads for Ntot and Ptot (FR, IT). Catchments of sensitive areas were reported with different designation criteria than the related sensitive area (IT). FI reported that subregions of the national territory additionally require secondary nitrogen (N) removal, if this is necessary based on the local situation. These Nsensitive areas remain undefined and were not reported with GIS-coordinates; therefore compliance could not be verified for N without having the specification of the receiving areas. According to FI the rare distribution of larger agglomerations makes such a GIS-delineation hardly feasible. In those cases, in which the Commission is of a different opinion as regards the geographical extension of the sensitive areas and their catchment areas, the nondesignation of sensitive areas, the criterion of designation of sensitive areas or the designation of less sensitive areas, these differences may be subject to further requests and clarification between the related Member States and the Commission on a bilateral level.
3.4 Purpose of this report

The purpose of the current report is twofold: (1) to present the current status of waste water infrastructure describing the available installations for urban waste water collection and treatment in place as reported by Member States as well as (2) to assess the implementation as regards the requirements and deadlines / transitional periods of the Directive. In EU-15 Member States the final deadline to fully comply with the requirements of the Directive expired on 31 December 2005. At the latest by this date, a collecting system (Article 3) and at least secondary treatment (Article 4) had to be provided in agglomerations with a load of more than 2,000 p.e. with the exception of those agglomerations between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e discharging into coastal areas. In sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive areas, more stringent treatment (Article 5) needed to be additionally installed. For EU-12 Member States different transitional periods for the implementation of the Directive apply, of which several already expired by the reference date of reporting for this report.
29
4 Methodology of data evaluation and presentation of the results

Information on urban waste water treatment, as reported by the Member States, is analysed and presented in two different ways according to the purpose of this report. The following sub-chapters provide an overview of the data assessment and presentation of results. As the application of individual appropriate systems for waste water treatment according to Article 3 and the designation (date and criteria) of sensitive areas and catchment areas of sensitive areas according to Article 5 are of particular relevance for the European Commission, two separate sub-sections provide detailed background information highlighting the principles of the respective data assessment.
4.1 Presentation of the status of waste water infrastructure in place

For the presentation of the current status of waste water infrastructure in place, the available installations for urban waste water collection and treatment in each country are described. Without considering treatment requirements laid down by the Directive, the different waste water pathways of the total generated load of each agglomeration with more than 2,000 p.e. were assessed. In case that only a part of the agglomeration (i.e. more than 0% of the entire generated load) was covered by a specific treatment type, the agglomeration was counted to have this treatment available. At the same time, the absolute generated load covered by this treatment type was taken into account. The treatment installations in place and the monitoring results verifying a treatment type were assessed and presented separately. The following example describes the way of presenting the results of the assessment: 40% of the entire generated load of agglomeration A (50,000 p.e.) are connected to a waste water treatment plant with installations for secondary treatment in place. As it can be seen in Table 3 agglomeration A was counted to have secondary treatment in place. At the same time the fraction of the generated load (40% of 50,000 p.e. = 20,000 p.e.) connected to secondary treatment is highlighted.
Member State Total Secondary treatment in place Number of agglomerations 48 1 [%] 100 2.1 Generated load (p.e.) 1,300,000 20,000 [%] 100 1.54
Table 3: Example for presentation of data for the current status of implementation of the Directive throughout the EU.
4.2 Assessment of compliance with the requirements and deadlines/transitional periods

For agglomerations with more than 2,000 p.e. in EU-15, the final deadline for implementation of the Directive expired on 31 December 2005. For 7 of EU-12 Member States transitional periods for the implementation of the Directive had not expired by the reference date of reporting 2007/2008: BG, CY, EE, HU, LV, RO and SI. For the assessment of compliance as regards the requirements and deadlines / transitional periods of the UWWTD the available infrastructure for urban waste water collection and
30
treatment in each country was evaluated against the requirements laid down in Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Directive. The parameters determining these treatment requirements are the following: Size of the agglomeration (p.e.) Deadline / transitional period to comply with the Directive for this agglomeration Type of receiving area (i.e. normal area, sensitive area) Date of designation / review of the receiving area Type of receiving water (e.g. freshwater, coastal water) As a main principle of this evaluation, an agglomeration was considered as in compliance with the Directive, if all waste water is collected and connected to treatment plants, and all these plants serving the agglomeration are compliant with the required treatment (complying treatment type and monitoring results). In addition, the assessment of the compliance status of the overall load generated in a Member State was performed. For this purpose the part of the load of the agglomeration which complies with the Directive requirements was taken into account. The following example describes this situation in more detail: Agglomeration A (50,000 p.e.) is located in a normal area and requires secondary treatment for its entire generated load. The agglomeration is served by two waste water treatment plants: 75% of the entire generated load is treated in UWWTP 1, which provides secondary treatment in accordance with the requirements of the Directive. The remaining 25% of the entire generated load is treated in UWWTP 2, which provides primary treatment only. For purpose of the data evaluation, agglomeration A was considered as not in compliance with Article 4, but these 75% of the entire generated load, receiving secondary treatment were assessed as in compliance with the requirements of the Directive. Agglomeration B (90,000 p.e.) is located in a normal area, requires secondary treatment for its entire generated load and has secondary treatment installations and complying monitoring results in place. Agglomeration B is therefore assessed as in compliance with Article 4. When highlighting the assessment of compliance with Article 4 in the summary tables for each Member State, only the collected load of the agglomeration which is compliant with the Directive is presented. Table 4 gives an example of the presentation of the assessment per Member State. The number of agglomerations subject to compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 and the number of agglomerations which comply with the treatment requirements (in reference to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. as well as only those agglomerations subject to compliance) are clearly highlighted in the report.
Member State Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Number of agglomerations 350 287 1 1 63 [%] 100,0 82.0 0.3 0.4 18.0 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.) 7,500,000 7,456,686 90,000 90,000 43,314 [%] 100 99.4 1.2 1.2 0.6
Table 4: Example for presentation of data for assessment of the implementation of the Directive with regards its requirements and deadlines/ transitional periods.
31
4.3 Application of individual appropriate systems (IAS) for waste water treatment (Article 3)
Article 3 of the Directive considers IAS in exceptional cases as an appropriate solution for waste water treatment. The fraction of waste water addressed through IAS is generally assessed as in compliance with Article 3 of the Directive, but with the constraint, that this compliance is questionable, unless more detailed information on IAS is made available. In case a threshold value of 2% is exceeded for IAS, more detailed data on the type of treatment provided in in-situ IAS and/or the rate of the generated load of an agglomeration transported to an UWWTP by truck after collection in IAS should be provided by Member 7 States in the UWWTD-reporting format. As an example, Greece reported a considerable amount of agglomerations which are to 100 % treated in IAS. Articles 4 and 5 are hence of no relevance for these agglomerations. In the future the Commission may request further information on agglomerations, for which a relevant percentage of the waste water is treated in IAS.
4.4 Historical assessment of the date of and the criteria for the designation/review of SA and their related CSA (Article 5)
For those EU-15 Member States applying Article 5(2) since 2005 (namely IE, IT, ES, FR, EL and PT) a "historical assessment" as regards the date of and the criteria for the designation / review of SA and their related CSA was developed. The assessment of data as regards Article 5 has generally been performed based on the latest information reported by the Member States in Q2009, taking into account the date of and the criteria for the designation / review of SA and their related CSA. Since the publication of the 4th Implementation Report many Member States have reviewed their list of SA and related CSA. In the "historical assessment", in the case of different treatment requirements and/or designation and reviewing dates reported for SA and their related CSA compared to previous reporting exercises, the strictest requirement resulting from data reported (designation date and designation criteria) for the 4th, 5th or 6th Synthesis Report, were taken as the basis for the data assessment, unless solid explanations for the different treatment requirements and/or designation/reviewing dates for the SA and their related CSA (in both cases when requirements are lowered) were provided by MS. SA and their related CSA cannot be re-designated (designation date and designation criteria) by Member States through different reporting exercises without providing sound arguments for these changes in order to ensure acceptance of these redesignations through the COM. The results of the historical assessment are included in the figures of the summary tables for all respective Member States. The summary tables on normal areas, sensitive areas and Article 5(4) areas include all agglomerations, which discharged in the respective area according to data reported in Q2009.
7
This should be done in the database in terms of the parameters aggPercPrimTreatment, aggPercSecTreatment and aggPercStringentTreatment (in the form T_Agglomerations), which reveal the type of treatment provided in in-situ IAS and/or in terms of the parameter aucPercC2T (in the form T_UwwtpAgglo), which reveals the rate of the generated load of an agglomeration transported to an UWWTP by truck after collection in IAS.
32
The following examples of the "historical assessment" can be given: In case an agglomeration discharges in an area sensitive for criterion (a) (P) in Q2009, but the historical assessment reveals that the area was reported sensitive for N and P in former reporting exercises, the agglomeration is however presented in the summary table for areas sensitive to criterion (a) (P). In the case that more stringent treatment with complying monitoring results for N removal is not in place in this agglomeration, this agglomeration will be assessed as non compliant with the requirements of Article 5, based on the historical assessment. Agglomerations reported as discharging into a normal area in Q2009, but reported as discharging into a sensitive area (Article 5(2,3)) in former reports, are presented in the summary tables for agglomerations discharging in normal areas under the category Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) due to historical assessment of SA/ CSA. Furthermore, different data as regards the date of and the criteria for the designation/review of SA and their related CSA reported in Q2009 and other national implementation documents from Member States have been identified and need to be clarified with the respective Member States on a bilateral level.
4.5 Presentation of the status of waste water infrastructure and treatment in big cities / big dischargers
For big cities / big dischargers and agglomerations with more than 150,000 p.e., which represent the biggest stressors to the aquatic environment, the current status of implementation of waste water collection and treatment was described in an additional subchapter. Only the available waste water treatment infrastructure was described without consideration of treatment requirements.
33
5 UWWTD implementation in EU Member States

5.1 Identification of Sensitive Areas and Catchment of Sensitive Areas in 27 Member States
As requested in Article 5(1) of the Directive, Member States have to identify sensitive areas according to the criteria laid down in Annex II of the Directive and to review this identification at least every four years according to Article 5(6). However, according to Article 5(8), Member States do not have to identify sensitive areas if more stringent treatment will be applied over the whole territory. Concerning the requirement of more stringent treatment, the Directive provides the option of individually targeting each agglomeration with a load of more than 10,000 p.e. according to Article 5(2,3) or achieving a general removal rate for nitrogen and phosphorus by 75% of the load entering all urban waste water treatment plants according to Article 5(4). With reference date 31 December 2007 or 31 December 2008 12 Member States have decided to apply Article 5(8) of the Directive and consider their entire territory as sensitive area: AT, CZ, DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL and RO. o Out of those, 8 Member States apply Article 5(8) and Article 5(2,3) with sensitivity for N and P with the exception of FI, which applies the Directive with sensitivity for P only (and for some subregions, if this is necessary due to the local situation, sensitivity for N is applied). o AT, DE, NL and PL apply Article 5(8) and Article 5(4). BE, SK and SE apply Article 5(2,3) and have identified all their water bodies as sensitive areas. The remaining 12 Member States decided to apply Article 5(2,3) of the Directive and identified certain water bodies in their territory as sensitive areas and/or catchment of sensitive areas: BG, CY, EL, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, MT, PT, SI and UK. Due to the fact that UK did not report a dataset in time, UK is not covered in this report. Summarizing the situation of EU-27 Member States, 15 Member States apply Article 5 of the Directive to their entire territory or have designated all their water bodies as sensitive areas, whereas 12 Member States have identified certain water bodies in their territory as sensitive areas for which more stringent treatment requirements need to be implemented. At the reference of the 2007 reporting exercise, 14 Member States stated that they had implemented Article 5(2) of the Directive to their entire territory or that they had designated all their water bodies as sensitive areas (AT, BE, CZ, DK, EE, FI, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, RO, SK and SE), while 13 Member States have identified certain water bodies in their territory as sensitive areas and/or catchment of sensitive areas (BG, CY, DE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, MT, PT, SI and UK. Comparing the 5th to the current Implementation Report, only DE changed its approach from applying Article 5(2,3) to applying Article 5(8) and Article 5(4). After the accession of the new EU Member States in 2004 and 2007 the Baltic Sea, the North-west shelf of the Black Sea, the Danube Delta and the Northern Adriatic are considered as sensitive or catchment areas due to eutrophication, thus requiring countries, lying in the relevant catchments, to apply more stringent treatment with nitrogen and phosphorus removal: For the Baltic Sea, out of those EU Member States being part of the catchment (DK, EE, FI, DE, LV, LT, PL and SE), all EU-15 Member States as well as LT (for agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e) and PL (for 674 agglomerations
34
representing 69% of the total generated load) have to be compliant with Article 5 for the reference year 2007/2008, while EE and LV are not yet subject to compliance with more stringent treatment requirements. For those EU Member States lying in the Black Sea catchment, RO and BG, the relevant deadlines for applying Article 5 are not yet expired. More stringent treatment requirements are not yet due in the Danube Delta as the relevant deadline in RO is not yet due to be applied. For the catchment of the Northern Adriatic Sea it can be said that the deadline to apply with more stringent treatment expired in IT, while SI is still in the transition period to comply with the requirements of Article 5.
Since the publication of the 4th Implementation Report many Member States have reviewed their list of sensitive areas and their catchment areas. Several areas, which were considered potentially sensitive in the 4th Implementation Report were designated sensitive during the last years. In addition, Member States reviewed the reasons for their designation, but also the extent of existing sensitive areas. As the 2009 reporting exercise required Member States to provide geographical information (GIS files) for all designated sensitive areas and their catchment areas and to clearly indicate the reason (criteria for identification according to Annex II of the Directive) and date of designation, the modifications can be presented in a clear way for those Member States applying Article 5(2,3) and identifiying certain water bodies in their territory as sensitive areas and/or catchment of sensitive areas. The UWWTD reporting format therefore provides the possibility to track back the history of sensitive areas and their catchments. In case a sensitive area is reviewed by the Member State (e.g. the ID and/or the borders and/or the designation criteria), the old sensitive area has to be reported and needs to be indicated as inactive in the UWWTD reporting format. At the same time, the new reviewed sensitive area has to be reported and needs to be indicated as active for the current reporting exercise. In addition, the predecessor of the new sensitive area has to be made clear by the Member State. For the data evaluation of the 6th Report the Commission did not accept the review of sensitive areas and their catchments, in case the review resulted in lowered treatment requirements compared to UWWTDQ2007 and no further justification was provided for this change by the Member States. Figure 6 and Table 5 provide an overview of the designation of sensitive areas and their related catchments and highlight the respective application of Article 5(1) and 5(2,3), Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) or Article 5(8) and 5(4) as well as the number (and percentage of the national territory) of SA and CSA identified. By the reference year for this report and based on GIS data reported by Member States, it can be seen that 35.08% of the territory of EU-27 is designated as sensitive area and/or catchment of sensitive area according to Article 5(1) and 5(2,3). 37.70% of the territory of EU-27 needs to receive more stringent waste water treatment as Member States apply more stringent treatment in the whole territory according to Article 5(8). In total, 72.78% of EU-27 territory receives more stringent treatment according to Article 5 of the UWWTD.
35
Figure 6: Overview of sensitive areas and catchment areas of sensitive areas in EU-27 (as reported by Member States) for reference year 31 December 2007 or 31 December 2008.
36
MS
UWWTD Articles applied
Number of sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive areas identified
% of national territory identified as sensitive area or catchment of sensitive area
AT BE BG CY CZ DK EE EL
Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) - entire territory Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)
Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas Application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) for entire territory, sensitivity N and P 14 SA + 14 CSA 2 SA + 2 CSA 100.00 87.67 2.57
Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas 46 SA + 34 CSA 23.25
FI FR DE HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SK SI ES
Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) + Art. 5(4) Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) + Art. 5(4) Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4) Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) - entire territory Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)
Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity P (and for some subregions, if this is necessary due to the local situation, sensitivity for N) - no identification of sensitive areas 65 SA 60.03
Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas 3 SA 49 SA + 49 CSA 199 SA + 188 CSA 7.04 50.48 54.45
Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas 8 SA only coastal area identified as SA
Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas 25 SA + 9 LSA + 25 CSA 29.15
Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas Application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) for entire territory, sensitivity N and P 58 SA + 58 CSA 392 SA + 394 CSA 100.00 39.73 33.55
SE UK
Application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) for entire territory, sensitivity N and P Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) - entire territory for Southern Coast, sensitivity P for Northern Coast and inland waters 100.00 No data reported until June 2010. United Kingdom applies Article 5(1) and Article 5(2,3). GIS data reported in 2010 was used for displaying the territory identified as SA/CSA in figure 6.
Table 5: Overview on sensitive areas and catchment areas of sensitive areas in EU-27 Member States (reference date 31 December 2007 or 31 December 2008).
37
5.2 Status of waste water infrastructure in 26 Member States

5.2.1 General Overview
Summarising the number of agglomerations and their generated load, it can be seen that 26 Member States reported 22,626 agglomerations of more than 2,000 p.e. amounting for a total generated load of more than 550 million population equivalents (p.e.). Table 6 gives a detailed overview on the number of agglomerations and their generated load/ size per size class in the 26 Member States reported in Q2009. Table 7 provides a comparison of the total number of agglomerations and their generated load reported for Q2007 and Q2009 for those Member States included in the 5th Implementation Report.
38
Table 6: Number and generated load of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. of 26 Member States.
2,000 10,000 p.e. Number agglomerations AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK Total 379 233 412 48 478 2,317 256 22 358 1,496 112 2,193 305 132 2,096 39 34 58 2 90 585 267 2,351 213 127 276 14,879 Generated load (p.e.) 1,789,796 1,130,200 1,593,154 203,800 1,934,808 11,292,914 1,245,969 86,500 1,465,588 6,915,325 526,700 9,428,246 1,571,045 587,500 9,896,246 188,500 145,380 271,235 10,200 495,250 3,057,216 1,239,520 9,743,977 1,014,138 514,320 1,106,510 67,453,237 10,001 15,000 p.e. Number agglomerations 46 47 31 1 52 471 42 6 35 199 17 285 49 19 278 9 5 9 0 31 196 22 101 34 11 21 2,017 Generated load (p.e.) 596,625 601,900 389,645 11,000 634,001 5,867,604 546,127 73,000 453,696 2,489,775 203,900 3,490,234 596,008 240,307 3,441,363 110,500 64,230 107,698 0 408,136 2,426,951 275,500 1,236,321 413,553 125,220 267,410 25,070,704 15,001 - 150,000 p.e. Number agglomerations 198 97 80 7 102 1,292 118 12 69 505 49 660 129 34 788 18 6 15 3 188 396 107 136 90 17 54 5,170 Generated load (p.e.) 8,612,955 3,807,700 3,676,536 426,000 4,318,063 51,891,187 5,926,804 607,100 2,980,978 22,910,333 2,202,800 28,070,130 4,656,330 1,553,060 34,121,053 812,500 189,006 554,241 223,800 8,951,937 17,150,314 5,238,900 5,697,962 3,654,754 571,957 2,183,850 220,990,250 > 150,000 p.e. Number agglomerations 15 11 12 1 4 113 11 2 6 89 5 55 14 2 84 4 1 2 1 25 57 12 22 6 1 5 560 Generated load (p.e.) 8,917,000 4,203,600 4,978,824 220,000 1,588,261 44,905,984 3,867,245 618,000 7,270,000 36,405,688 2,106,400 28,320,736 6,408,335 3,193,333 34,391,149 1,575,000 255,054 912,018 350,000 6,245,523 21,286,914 4,326,500 9,100,042 3,387,043 320,252 1,701,600 236,854,501 Total Number agglomerations 638 388 535 57 636 4,193 427 42 468 2,289 183 3,193 497 187 3,246 70 46 84 6 334 1,234 408 2,610 343 156 356 22,626 Generated load (p.e.) 19,916,376 9,743,400 10,638,159 860,800 8,475,133 113,957,689 11,586,145 1,384,600 12,170,262 68,721,121 5,039,800 69,309,346 13,231,718 5,574,200 81,849,811 2,686,500 653,670 1,845,192 584,000 16,100,846 43,921,395 11,080,420 25,778,302 8,469,488 1,531,749 5,259,370 550,369,492
Draft Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 16 July 2011)
39
Table 7 highlights the comparison of the number and total generated load of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. of those 18 Member States, for which data was available from Q2007 and Q2009: No major difference can be seen in the total number of agglomerations with the exception of FR (plus 189 agglomerations in Q2009) and HU (plus 93 agglomerations in Q2009). The total generated load reported in Q2009 significantly increased in comparison to Q2007 for the following Member States: HU (plus 3,588,563 p.e.) and FR (2,128,403 p.e.). No major changes in the total generated load were reported for all other Member States.
Table 7: Comparison of total number and generated load of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. of 18 Member States, for which data was available from Q2007 and Q2009.
Figure 7 illustrate how big cities with more than 150,000 p.e., despite their low number, generate the highest waste water loads across the EU. 43.0% of the total load is generated by big cities (2.5% of the number of agglomerations with more than 2,000 p.e.).
Figure 7: Frequency of agglomeration sizes (left) and generated load (right) of agglomeration sizes in EU-27 (2,000 to 10,000 p.e.; 10,001 to 15,000 p.e.; 15,001 to 150,000 p.e.; > 150,000 p.e.) .
40
Figure 8: Frequency (left) and generated load (right) of agglomeration sizes in EU-15 (solid bars) and EU12 (transparent bars) for 2,000 to 10,000 p.e.; 10,001 to 15,000 p.e.; 15,001 to 150,000 p.e.; > 150,000 p.e.
5.2.2
Status of waste water infrastructure
Figure 9 to Figure 11 give an overview of the level of collecting systems, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment in place in EU-27 Member States. The figures do only reflect the actual infrastructure in place as reported by Member States and do not give any information about compliance with the requirements of the Directive. Nevertheless it has to be considered that the following Member States are not yet due to comply with the requirements of Article 3, 4 and 5 of the Directive: BG, CY, EE, HU, LV, RO and SI as well as Lithuania for Article 3 and Slovakia for Article 5. Data on the share of generated load collected in collecting system was reported by all 26 MS. While AT, DK, FIN, FR, DE, IE, LUX, NL, PT, ES and SE have more than 98% of generated load collected in collecting systems, EL has a share of 87%. For EU-12, CY and RO have a share of 53% and 50% of their generated load collected in a collecting system. BG, SK and SI have a share between 70 to 80%, and all other new MS have a share of 8 around 80% and MT 100% of the generated load collected in collecting systems.
Article 3 of the Directive gives Member States the possibility to use individual systems or other appropriate systems, which achieve the same level of environmental protection in those cases where the establishment of a collecting system is not justified either because it would produce no environmental benefit or because it would involve excessive cost. As an example, it can be seen that for Greece a considerable share of the generated load is treated in IAS. When looking at the figures of collecting systems in place, it needs to be kept in mind that a certain share of load can also possibly be treated in IAS.
41
Figure 9: Share of total generated load (p.e.) collected in collecting system in EU-27.
BG did not report any data as regards the generated load treated by secondary treatment. CY did not yet provide monitoring data as regards secondary treatment installations. From EU-15, infrastructure in AT, DK, FIN, NL and SE provide secondary tratment whose monitoring results are complying for 99 to 100% of their generated load in place. For EU-12 EE, LV, LT and PL around 80% of their generated load are treated by secondary treatment with complying monitoring results ranging between 70 to 80%.
Figure 10: Share of total generated load (p.e.) treated by secondary treatment (treatment installation in place, monitoring results comply with secondary treatment requirements).
BG did not report any data on more stringent treatment. CY did not yet provide monitoring data as regards more stringent treatment installations. Infrastructure in AT, FIN and NL provides more stringent treatment whose monitoring results are complying for 99 to 100% of their generated load. More than 59% of the generated load of HU, LT and PL are treated with more stringent treatment with monitoring results complying by more than 52%.
42
Figure 11: Share of total generated load (p.e.) treated by more stringent treatment (treatment installation in place, monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment requirements).
In Figure 12 and Figure 13 the average share of generated load collected in collecting systems, treated by secondary treatment and more stringent treatment is highlighted. For EU-15 99% of the generated load and for EU-12 65% of the generated load is collected in collecting systems. For EU-15, 96% of the generated load is treated in installations providing secondary treatment, and for 89% of the generated load monitoring results comply with the requirements of secondary treatment. For EU-12 48% of the generated load is treated in installations with secondary treatment, and for 39% of the generated load the monitoring results comply with the requirements of secondary treatment. As regards treatment installations for more stringent treatment, for EU-15 88% of the generated load is treated in such installations with complying monitoring results for 79% of the generated load. For EU-12 more stringent treatment installations are in place for 27% of the generated load with complying monitoring results for 24% of the generated load.
43
When expressing waste water infrastructure in place for EU-15 and EU-12 expressed in an average share of the total generated load collected in collecting systems, treated by secondary and more stringent treatment, the figures are the following: Collecting systems in place: 99% EU-15, 65% EU-12 Secondary treatment in place: 96% (working adequately: 89%) for EU-15, 48% (working adequately: 39%) for EU-12 More stringent treatment in place: 88% (working adequately: 79%) for EU-15, 27% (working adequately: 24%) for EU-12 As reported for 26 Member States (data for collecting systems) and 25 Member States (data for secondary treatment and more stringent treatment installations) in 2007/2008. BG did not provide data as regards secondary and more stringent treatment installations as well as related monitoring results.
5.3 Assessment of compliance with the requirements of the UWWTD in 19 Member States
5.3.1 General overview
The reference date of information reported under UWWTD Q2009 is 31 December 2007 or in case more updated information was available 31 December 2008. At this date all EU-15 Member States had to comply with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Directive. For EU-12 Member States, different transitional periods apply: CZ, MT, PL and SK need to (partly) comply with the requirements for Article 3: o CZ: Compliance due by 01 May 2004 for 18 agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. and 31 December 2006 for 36 agglomerations. o o MT: Final deadline to comply with the requirements in all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. was 31 March 2007. PL: The relevant deadline to comply with the requirements of the Directive in this reporting period is 31 December 2005 for 674 agglomerations representing 69% of the generated load.
44
SK: On 31 December 2004 83% of the total biodegradable load had to be in compliance; on 31 December 2008 91% of the total biodegradable load need to be compliant with the requirements of the Directive.
CZ, LT, MT, PL and SK need to (partly) comply with the requirements for Article 4: o CZ: Compliance due by 01 May 2004 for 18 agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. and 31 December 2006 for 36 agglomerations. o o o LT: Compliance in agglomerations > 10,000 p.e. must be reached by the end of 2007. MT: Final deadline to comply with the requirements in all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. was 31 March 2007. PL: The relevant deadline to comply with the requirements of the Directive in this reporting period is 31 December 2005 for 674 agglomerations representing 69% of the generated load. SK: On 31 December 2004 83% of the total biodegradable load had to be in compliance; on 31 December 2008 91% of the total biodegradable load need to be compliant with the requirements of the Directive.
CZ, LT, MT and PL need to (partly) comply with the requirements for Article 5: o CZ: Compliance due by 01 May 2004 for 18 agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. and 31 December 2006 for 36 agglomerations. o o o LT: Compliance in agglomerations > 10,000 p.e. must be reached by the end of 2007. MT: Final deadline to comply with the requirements in all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. was 31 March 2007. PL: The relevant deadline to comply with the requirements of the Directive in this reporting period is 31 December 2005 for 674 agglomerations representing 69% of the generated load.
For seven Member States (BG, CY, EE, HU, LV, RO and SI), compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 was of no relevance at the reference date 31 December 2007 or 31 December 2008.
In EU-15 Member States, all agglomerations with a size of more than 2,000 p.e. are subject to Article 3 and Article 4, except agglomerations with a size of 2,000 p.e. 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal waters which are not subject to Article 4. As concerns Article 5(2,3), all agglomerations 10,000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas and their catchments, and all agglomerations discharging into normal areas are not subject to compliance with Article 5(2,3). In addition, all agglomerations which discharge into an area where Article 5(4) is applied, are not subject to compliance with Article 5(2,3) as more stringent treatment is not requested on agglomeration-level, but a minimum reduction rate of 75% for total nitrogen and total phosphorus needs to be achieved for the entire load entering the UWWTPs of the respective area.
5.3.2
Assessment of compliance with the requirements of the UWWTD
Figure 14 to Figure 19 provide an overview of the compliance assessment as regards the requirements of Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 in each of the Member States, which are subject to compliance. The figures indicate the generated load whose treatment complies with the requirements of the Directive, with respect to the total amount of generated load that should comply with the Directive by the reference of this report. Average compliance rates of EU-15 and EU-12 are given in figure 21 and 21.
45
As the deadlines to comply with the requirements of waste water collecting systems have expired, the following 18 Member States had to be compliant with Article 3: AT, BE, CZ, DK, FI, FR, DE, EL, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SK, ES and SE. 8 Member States including those 7 Member States for which no transitional period expired for this report (BG, CY, EE, 9 HU, LV, RO and SI) as well as LT , were not subject to compliance with Article 3 in the 2009 reporting exercise. Compliance with secondary treatment need to be ensured for those 19 Member States, for which the deadlines to meet the requirements of Article 4 have ended: AT, BE, CZ, DK, FI, FR, DE, EL, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SK, ES and SE. The deadlines to comply with more stringent treatment requirements (Article 5) expired for the following 18 Member States: AT, BE, CZ, DK, FI, FR, DE, EL, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, ES and SE. In addition to those 7 Member States for which no transitional period expired in the 2009 reporting exercise, SK was not yet subject to compliance with Article 5. Poland applies Article 5(4) instead of Article 5(1) and Article 5(2,3) as agreed in the Accession Treaty. As it can be observed from the following figures, the UWWTD was not fully implemented in those Member States, for which the final or interim deadline for meeting the requirements of Article 3, 4 and 5 of the Directive expired by the end of 2007/2008. Compliance with Article 3 (collecting systems) is reported as 100% for all Member States except BE (70%), IT (84%), PL (66%), PT (88%), SK (43%) and ES (97%).
Figure 14: Assessment of compliance with Article 3 (in relation to the generated load subject to compliance with Article 3) for 18 MS subject to compliance.
9
In the Accession Treaty of Lithuania, compliance with Articles 4 and 5(2) in agglomerations > 10,000 p.e. must be reached by the end of 2007; however, compliance with Article 3 for those agglomerations was agreed to be reached only by the end of 2009. Such sequence of deadlines (collection after treatment) is not in line with the approach in other EU-12 Member States (compliance in treatment agreed to be reached after compliance in collection).
46
Figure 15: Countrywise compliance with Article 3. Symbol size proportional to waste water load generated. Average compliance (by generated load) indicated by red dot.
More than 96% of the load of AT, DK, FI, DE, EL, NL and SE which is subject to compliance is compliant with Article 4 (secondary treatment), while BE (65%), FR (64%), IT (58%), IE (21%), LU (56%), PT (36%) and ES (83%) show significantly lower compliance rates. From EU-12 Member States, it can be seen that compliance for CZ is 11%, for LT 87%, for MT 13%, PL (58%), and for SK 23 % of the subjected load.
Figure 16: Assessment of compliance with Article 4 (in relation to the generated load subject to compliance with Article 4) for 19 MS subject to compliance.
47
120
100
FI
SE
DK GR
NL
AT
DE
Art. 4- compliance in % of subjected load
50 Mio p.e.
LT
ES
80 compliance all cty's: 68 60

LU
BE
FR PL
IT
40
20
MT
SK
IE
CZ
CY
EE SI
LV
BU
HU
RO
-20
country rank (by load subjected to Art. 4)
Figure 17: Country wise compliance with Article 4. Symbol size proportional to waste water load subject to Article 4. Average compliance (by subject load) indicated by red dot.
Compliance with Article 5 (more stringent treatment) in AT, FI, DE and NL is 100%, while DK has a compliance rate of 94%, EL of 84% and SE of 74% of its subjected load. A lower compliance rate can be found in BE (48%), FR (56%), IT (66%), LU (34%), PT (15%) and ES (32%). For EU-12, CZ has a compliance rate of 11%, while 61% of the subjected load of LT is already compliant with the requirements of more stringent treatment.
Figure 18: Assessment of compliance with Article 5 (in relation to the generated load subject to compliance with Article 5) for for 18 MS subject to compliance.
48
Figure 19: Countrywise compliance with Article 5. Symbol size proportional to wastewater load subject to Article 5. Average compliance (by subject load) indicated by red dot.
The maps in Figure 20 show compliance rates for collecting systems (Article 3), secondary treatment (Article 4) and more stringent treatment (Article 5) in Member States as a percentage of the load subject to compliance.
49
Figure 20: Share of generated load compliant with Article 3, 4 and Article 5 in EU-27.
Figure 21: Assessment of compliance rates with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 for Member States for which the deadline for implementation has expired by the date of reporting (solid bars: subjected load, transparent bars: compliant load) in relation to the total generated load.
When expressing the average compliance rates not as percentage of the total generated load, but as percentage of the load for which compliance is required the figures for compliance with the requirements of the Directive are the following:
50
Figure 22: Assessment of compliance rates with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 for Member States for which the deadline for implementation has expired by the date of reporting (solid bars: subjected load, transparent bars: compliant load) in relation to the total subjected load.
Compliance with Article 3 in relation to subjected load: 92.8% Compliance with Article 3 required for the following 18 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden Compliance with Article 4 in relation to subjected load: 78.0% Compliance with Article 4 required for the following 19 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden Compliance with Article 5 in relation to subjected load: 75.4 % Compliance with Article 5 required for the following 18 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden
5.4 Status of urban waste water infrastructure and treatment in big cities / big dischargers
For the reference year 2007/2008 26 Member States reported 586 big cities/ big dischargers with a total generated load of around 248 Mp.e. This number covers on the one side real big cities (formed by one or several agglomerations) and all agglomerations with more than 150,000 p.e.. At the reference date of this report No treatment was reported for Barreiro/Moita in PT (170,000 p.e.). The following big cities in RO were reported without any treatment: Braila (236,400 p.e.), Craiova (359,315 p.e.), Galati (450,000 p.e.) and Bucuresti (2,227,103 p.e). Seven big cities/ big discharger were reported with primary treatment being the best available treatment: Ploiesti, RO (336,601 p.e.); Timisoara, RO (367,676 p.e.); Frejus, FR (224,000 p.e.); Kaunas, LT (309,000 p.e.); Costa do Estoril, PT (797,700 p.e.) and Matosinhos, PT (287,000 p.e.) as well as Trieste, IT (299,377 p.e).
51
Table 8: Number and size of big cities / big dischargers in different receiving areas in EU-27.
Best available treatment Type of SA 5(4) or 5(2,3) Number of big cities/ big dischargers Total generated load Mpe Normal area / less sensitive area Article5(4) Sensitive Area Article 5(2,3) Sensitive Area Total: 102 33.5 Not collected / not treated in IAS Mpe 0.5 % of gen. load 2 Treated in IAS Collected without treatment Primary Secondary More stringent
Mpe 1.9
% of gen. load 6
Mpe 3.6
% of gen. load 11
Mpe 1.3
% of gen. load 4
Mpe 7.0
% of gen. load 21
Mpe 19.1
% of gen. load 57
269
112.6
0.9
2.3
2.1
0.0
2.0
105.4
94
215
102.1
3.0
0.7
8.4
1.7
20.8
20
67.5
66
586
248.2
4.4
4.9
14.1
3.0
29.8
12
192.0
77
52
Figure 23 and 24 show the best available waste water treatment in big cities, summarised for different sensitivity categories (Article 5(2,3) areas, Article 5(4) areas and normal areas). 66.1 % of the total generated load of big cities discharging into an Article 5(2,3) area are treated with more stringent treatment. A considerable share of 20.4 % of the total load only receives secondary treatment. 1.7 % of the total load of all big cities discharging into Article 5(2,3) sensitive areas do only have primary treatment in place. As regards big cities discharging into Article 5(4) areas, 93.6% of the total generated load receives more stringent treatment. 1.8 % of the total generated load of big cities discharging into normal areas are only collected, but not treated. In total, it can be seen that installations for more stringent treatment are already in place for 77.3 % of the total generated load of big cities. 12.0 % of the total generated load is treated with secondary treatment only, 1.2% with primary treatment only and 5.7 % of the total generated load are collected, but not treated. 2.0 % of the total generated load are treated in individual appropriate systems and for 1.8 % of the total generated load of big cities waste water collecting systems are absent.
Figure 23: Best available waste water treatment in EU-27 big cities (in % of total generated load) discharging into different receiving areas (Article 5(2,3) areas, Article 5(4) areas and normal areas).
53
Figure 24: Best available waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers > 150,000 p.e. located in different receiving areas in EU-27 (loads per treatment category in % of total generated load).
5.5 Comparison of status of waste water infrastructure and compliance in 5th and 6th Implementation Report
5.5.1 General overview
In order to highlight the progress in the status of waste water infrastructure and compliance with the requirements of the UWWTD, results from the 5th Implementation Report (reference years 2005 or 2006) were compared with the data presentation and assessment for this Report. As BG, CZ, EL, ES, IE, IT, MT and PL (which did not report timely and in the agreed format) as well as LV (which did not report in the agreed format, but only on the basis of urban waste water treatment plants) were not covered in the 5th Implementation Report, data of those nine Member States could not be covered in the comparison. As for the current report, the dataset for UK was not delivered in due time for the preparation of the 5th Implementation Report. Compared to the 5th Implementation Report the following interim deadlines were addressed in the current Implementation Report for the first time: By 31 December 2007 Lithuania had to be compliant with Article 4 and 5(2) for all agglomerations > 10,000 p.e.. For Malta the final deadline expired on 31 October 2006 for Article 3 and on 31 March 2007 for Article 4. By 31 December 2008 91% of the total biodegradable load in Slovakia needed to be compliant with the requirements of Article 3 and 4.
5.5.2
Comparison of status of waste water infrastructure and compliance
Figure 25 and Figure 26 show the average progress of waste water infrastructure in place between this report and the data presented in the 5th Report for those 17 Member States, for which the comparison can be established.
54
It can be seen that for those 10 MS of EU-15 (AT, BE, DK, FI, FR, DE, LU, NL, PT and SE) for which this comparison could be elaborated, no major differences were reported for the average number of collecting systems as well as secondary treatment installations in place, while the average progress of installations for more stringent treatment installations with complying monitoring results improved for a considerable share of the total generated load of the respective Member States. For those 7 MS of EU-12 (CY, EE, HU, LT, RO, SK and SI) for which this comparison could be elaborated, a slight increase in the average share of generated load collected in collecting systems can be seen, while improvements can be seen for the results of complying monitoring results of secondary treatment installations. The average share of generated load treated with more stringent treatment installations remained practically at the same level as reported in the previous reporting cycle.
Figure 25: Average progress of waste water infrastructure in place reported for Q2007 and Q2009 for 10 MS of EU-15: AT, BE, DK, FI, FR, DE, LU, NL, PT and SE in relation to total generated load.
Figure 26: Average progress of waste water infrastructure in place reported for Q2007 and Q2009 for 7 MS of EU-12: CY, EE, HU, LT, RO, SK and SI in relation to total generated load.
55
If the comparison is done at individual Member States level, it can be seen from the table below that no major progresses have been achieved since the publication of the last Implementation Report for the collection systems for waste water in place, while secondary treatment and more stringent treatment installations with complying monitoring results show significant differences in the comparison of the previous reporting cycle and the current Implementation Report for some Member States. It can be seen that several Member States (AT, DK, NL and SE) already have a high status of waste water infrastructure in place (100%) since several reports. For those Member States having infrastructure rates equal to 100%, it is important to highlight that the status of waste water treatment infrastructure in place is not stagnating on a high level for the respective Member States, but regularly improved even going beyond the requirements of the Directive (e.g further advanced waste water treatment, improved maintenance and technical equipment of UWWTPs, etc.).
Table 9: Progress (%) from Q2007 to Q2009 in collecting systems in place, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment in place as well as complying monitoring results for those 17 Member States, for which information was available (green highlights increase of percentage, red shows decrease of percentage, orange: no changes). CY did not yet provide monitoring data as regards secondary treatment and more stringent treatment installations.
56
Figure 27Figure 31 show the progress of waste water infrastructure in place reported for this report and data presented in the 5th Implementation Report for those 17 Member States, for which data from the 5th Implementation Report were available.
Figure 27: Progress in collecting system in place (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the total generated load (Legend: a) not reported in Q2007).
Figure 28: Progress in secondary treatment installations in place (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the total generated load (Legend: a) not reported in Q2007).
57
Figure 29: Progress in secondary treatment installations with complying monitoring results in place (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the total generated load (Legend: a) not reported in Q2007).
Figure 30: Progress in more stringent treatment installations in place (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the total generated load (Legend: a) not reported in Q2007).
58
Figure 31: Progress in more stringent treatment installations with complying monitoring results in place (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the total generated load (Legend: a) not reported in Q2007).
If the comparison is done at individual Member States level, it can be seen from the table below that no major differences in the compliance (in % of subjected load) with Article 3 have been achieved since the publication of the last Implementation Report for the collection systems for waste water in place. Improved compliance with secondary treatment requirements according to Article 4 can be seen for FI, a considerable decrease in compliance was assessed for LU and SK, a small decrease for PT. Compliance rates with more stringent treatment requirements increased for DK, FI, FR, LU and SE.
Table 10: Progress (%) from Q2007 to Q2009 in compliance with Article 3, 4 and 5 for those 11 Member States, for which information was available (green highlights increase of percentage, red shows decrease of percentage, orange no changes).
Figure 32Figure 34 show the progress of the compliance rates with Article 3, 4 and 5 (in % of the total generated load) assessed for this report and data presented in the 5th Implementation Report for those Member States, for which data from the 5th Implementation Report were available.
59
Figure 32: Progress in compliance rates for Article 3 UWWTD (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) in % of the subjected load. (Legend: a) no data included in 5th implementation report and b) not subject to compliance with this Article)
Figure 33: Progress in compliance rates for Article 4 UWWTD (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) for EU-15 and EU-12 in % of the subjected load (Legend: a) no data included in 5th implementation report and b) not subject to compliance with this Article)
60
Figure 34: Progress in compliance rates for Article 5 UWWTD (reference years 2005/2006 for the 5th Implementation Report and reference years 2007/2008 for the 6th Implementation Report) for EU-15 and EU-12 in % of the subjected load (Legend: a) no data included in 5th implementation report and b) not subject to compliance with this Article)
61
6 Annex I: UWWTD Implementation in EU-26 Member States

6.1 Austria
6.1.1 General comments on data quality
Austria submitted information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report. The reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2008. The dataset was submitted in such a quality that no further corrections and/or modifications were required. In Austria, one agglomeration is served by one urban waste water treatment plant which means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : 1] is used.
6.1.2
Receiving Areas
Sensitive Areas In December 2002 Austria decided to apply Article 5(8) and 5(2) ensuring more stringent treatment with P removal for all agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e.. In UWWTD Q2007 Austria informed the Commission that Article 5(8) and 5(4) of the Directive is applied for the entire territory. Therefore the minimum reduction of the overall load entering all UWWTPs has to be at least 75% for total N and 75% for total P and no sensitive areas need to be identified. The same approach has been reported in UWWTD Q2009. Normal areas As Austria applies Article 5(8) and Article 5(4) of the Directive, normal areas do not exist.
6.1.3
Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(4) areas
For reference date 31 December 2008 Austria reported 638 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 19,916,376 p.e. 99.4% of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. were reported to be collected in a collecting system, while the remaining fraction is addressed through individual and appropriate systems. For this reason, all agglomerations (100% of the total generated load) were assessed as in compliance with Article 3. The entire generated load collected in collecting systems is treated by secondary treatment and provides satisfying monitoring results for BOD and COD, which means that all agglomerations comply with Article 4 of UWWTD. 631 agglomerations (covering 99.2% of the total generated load) are furthermore treated by more stringent treatment. In the reference year 2008 total N was reduced by 79.11% and total P by 89.26%, which means that Austria complies with Article 5(4) of the Directive.
Austria (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of Art. 5(8) + 5(4) Total Collecting system in place Number of agglomerations 638 638
[%] 100.0 100.0
Generated load (p.e.) 19,916,376 19,787,940
[%] 100.0 99.4
62
Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
638 638 631 631
100.0 100.0 98.9 98.9
19,787,940 19,787,940 19,760,390 19,760,390
99.4 99.4 99.2 99.2
Table 11: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Austria reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
Austria (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of Art. 5(8) + 5(4) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
Number of agglomerations 638 638 638 638 Number of agglomerations
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Generated load (p.e.) 19,916,376 19,916,376 19,916,376 19,916,376 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.) 19,787,940 19,787,940 19,787,940 19,787,940 19,787,940
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 5(2,3) not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
638 638 638 638 638
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table 12: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Austria reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
6.1.4
Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers
Austria documented 15 big cities / big dischargers with a generated load of 8,917,000 p.e. by 31 December 2008. The status of waste water treatment for those big cities / big dischargers was the following: Raum Wiener Neustadt and Raum Krems had more stringent treatment with Premoval. The remaining 13 big cities / big dischargers Wels und Umgebung, Strass/Zillertal, Hohenems, Raum St. Plten, Villach, Klagenfurt, Raum Schwechat, Meiningen, Innsbruck, Salzburg, Linz und Umgebung, Graz and Wien were equipped with more stringent treatment with N- and P-removal. Compared to the 5th Implementation Report Hard was removed from the list of big cities / big dischargers for reference date 31 December 2008, as the load has been reduced from over 150,000 p.e. to 138,150 p.e.. However, also Hard is equipped with more stringent treatment with N- and P-removal.
63
6.2 Belgium
Belgium submitted information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report and re-submitted a corrected dataset in May 2010. The reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2008. A main error in the data reported by Belgium, which affected the presentation of waste water infrastructure in place as well as the assessment of compliance with Article 3, 4 and 5, was found in the accounting imbalance among associated waste water flows. The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system. The components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%. In Belgium, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used. An agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.
6.2.2
Receiving Areas
Sensitive areas In Belgium, the implementation of the Directive is in the responsibility of the three regions: Flanders, Wallonia and the region of Brussels-Capital. In 1994 and 1995 the regions of Brussels-Capital, Flanders and Wallonia identified all their water bodies as sensitive areas for reason of eutrophication (nitrogen and phosphorus), which means that all water bodies in Belgium are sensitive areas (sensitivity for nitrogen and phosphorus), applying Article 5(2,3). Normal areas Since Belgium has designated all its water bodies as sensitive areas, normal areas do not exist.
6.2.3
Agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas (Article 5 (1,2,3))
At the reference date of 31 December 2008 Belgium reported 388 agglomerations equal or larger than 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 9.743.400 p.e. As it can be seen from table 13, 92.4% of the total generated load of all agglomerations equal or larger than 2,000 p.e. was reported to be collected in a collecting system. 6% was addressed through individual and appropriate systems (602,639 p.e.) and 1% of the total generated load was reported to be not collected in collecting system and not addressed through IAS (118,264 p.e). For this reason, 69.9% of the total generated load was reported to be in compliance with Article 3. Out of the total generated load, 92.4% of the entire generated load of all agglomerations beyond 2,000 p.e. should comply with waste water treatment requirements under Article 4 of the Directive. Out of the subjected load, 64.7% are in full compliance with the Directive. From the 89.4% of the load subject to Article 5 of the Directive, 48% are in full compliance
64
with the treatment requirements. For 11.6% of the total generated load Article 5 was not applicable as the size of the agglomerations was 10,000 p.e. or less.
Belgium (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) and Art. 5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
Number of agglomerations 388 365 318 317 239 236
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 9,743,400 9,007,191 8,369, 947 8 307 586 7,474,669 7,045,764
[%]
100.0 94.1 82.0 81.7 61,6 60,8
100.0 92.4 85.9 85.3 76.7 72.3
Table 13: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Belgium reported for reference date 31 December 2008 .
Belgium (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) and Art. 5(2,3) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
Number of agglomerations 388 388 238 238
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 9,743,400 9,743,400 6,810,700 6,810,700 Load collected in collecting systems (p.e.)
[%]
100.0 100.0 61.3 61.3
100.0 100.0 69.9 69.9
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5)
388 388 193 193 155 105 105
100.0 100.0 49.7 49.7 39.9 27.1 67.7
9,007,191 9,007,191 5,831,600 5,831,600 8,051,686 3,864,039 3,864,039
100.0 100.0 64.7 64.7 89.4 42.9 48.0
Table 14: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Belgium reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
65
6.2.4
Belgium documented 11 big cities / big dischargers with a total generated load of 4,577,600 p.e. by 31 December 2008. The status of waste water treatment for those big cities / big dischargers was the following: Brugge, Oostende, Antwerpen (Antwerpen-Zuid and Deurne, which accounted for the big city of Antwerpen since the reference date 31 December 2005) and Gent have more stringent treatment with N- and P- removal in place for the entire generated load. The agglomeration of Brussels is served by two WWTPs, Bruxelles Sud and Bruxelles Nord. Bruxelles Sud covers 22% of the generated load of Brussels and provides secondary treatment. Bruxelles Nord covers 78% of the generated load of Brussels and is equipped with N- and P-removal, and started operation in November 2006. For Mouscron the major part (97.1%) of the generated load is treated by more stringent treatment (N- and P-removal), whereas the remaining fraction receives secondary or no treatment. La Louviere (85.3%) and Mons (90.7%) have more stringent treatment with N- and P-removal for the major part of the generated load. Wavre has secondary treatment for the major part of their waste water (more than 85%). For a small part of their waste water Wavre (4%) has more stringent treatment with N- and P-removal, whereas the remaining fraction receives no treatment. The waste water of Charleroi (67.30%) and Liege (56.60%) is addressed by more stringent treatment with N- and P-removal, the remaining fraction receives secondary or no treatment.
6.3 Bulgaria
Bulgaria submitted information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report. The reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2008. A main error in the data reported by Bulgaria, which affected the presentation of waste water infrastructure in place, was found in the accounting imbalance among associated waste water flows. The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system. The components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%. In addition, Bulgaria did not report any data on the waste water treatment type as well as the monitoring results for secondary and more stringent treatment for all agglomerations. In Bulgaria, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used. The interim target date for Bulgaria for agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. to comply with Article 3, 4 and 5 (2) is 31 December 2010. The final deadline of the transitional period is 31 December 2014. As compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Directive was not required by 31 December 2008 for any agglomeration, no compliance check was elaborated. The present report solely describes the present status of waste water treatment for all agglomerations with a size of 2,000 p.e. or more.
66
6.3.2
Receiving Areas
Sensitive areas Bulgaria applies Article 5(2,3) of the Directive and has designated 14 sensitive areas and 14 catchment of sensitive areas.
6.3.3
Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas
For reference date 31 December 2008 Bulgaria reported 535 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 10,638,159 p.e. As it can be seen from table 15, 70.3 % of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. was reported to be collected in a collecting system. Data as regards secondary treatment and more stringent treatment installations were not reported for any of the agglomerations. As compliance with Article 3, 4 and 5 was not required by 31 December 2008 for any of the agglomerations, no compliance check was elaborated.
Bulgaria (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 535 366 NA NA NA NA Generated load (p.e.) 10,638,159 7,476,468 NA NA NA NA
[%] 100.0 68.4 NA NA NA NA
[%] 100.0 70.3 NA NA NA NA
Table 15: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Bulgaria reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
6.3.4
Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas
329 agglomerations with a generated load of 9,772,845 p.e. were reported to discharge their waste water into sensitive areas. All agglomerations have a collecting system in place, 74.9% of the total generated load is collected. No information was provided as regards secondary treatment and more stringent treatment in place as well as monitoring results. As compliance with Article 3, 4 and 5 was not required by 31 December 2008 for any of the agglomerations, no compliance check was elaborated for all agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas.
Bulgaria (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Number of agglomerations 329 329 NA
[%] 100.0 100.0 NA
Generated load (p.e.) 9,772,845 7,321,512 NA
[%] 100.0 74.9 NA
67
Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place
NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
Monitoring results comply with more stringent NA treatment
Table 16: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Bulgaria discharging into sensitive areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
6.3.5
Agglomerations discharging into normal areas
206 agglomerations with a generated load of 865,314 p.e. were reported to discharge their waste water into normal areas. 37 out of those 206 agglomerations have a collecting system in place covering 154,956 p.e and 17.9% of the total generated load. No information was provided as regards secondary treatment and more stringent treatment in place as well as monitoring results. As compliance with Article 3, 4 and 5 was not required by 31 December 2008 for any of the agglomerations, no compliance check was elaborated for all agglomerations discharging into normal areas.
Bulgaria (reference date 2008/12/31) Normal Areas Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 206 37 NA NA NA NA Generated load (p.e.) 865,314 154,956 NA NA NA NA
[%] 100.0 18.0 NA NA NA NA
[%] 100.0 17.9 NA NA NA NA
Table 17: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Bulgaria discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
6.3.6
Bulgaria documented 12 big cities / big dischargers with a generated load of 4,978,824 p.e. by 31 December 2008: Dobrich, Shumen, Pleven, Nesebar-Ravda-Slanchev bryag, Stara Zagora, Ruse, Sliven, Pazardzhik, Burgas, Varna, Plovdiv and Sofia. 3,774,478 p.e. (75.81%) of the load is collected in a collecting system. No information as regards secondary and more stringent treatment were reported.
6.4 Cyprus
Cyprus submitted information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report. The reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2007.
68
Although some minor corrections of the dataset were necessary, no major errors and inconsistencies were found in the data reported by Cyprus. In Cyprus, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used. An agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements. In Cyprus the interim target dates to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive are 31 December 2008 for Limassol and Paralimni, 31 December 2009 for Nicosia and 31 December 2011 for Paphos. The final deadline for compliance is 31 December 2012. As compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Directive was not required by 31 December 2007 (reference date of submitted data) for any agglomeration, no compliance check was elaborated. The present report solely describes the present status of waste water treatment for all agglomerations with a size of 2,000 p.e. or more.
6.4.2
Receiving Areas
Sensitive areas Cyprus applies Article 5(2,3) of the Directive and has designated 2 sensitive areas and related catchment areas in February 2004. Polemidia dam (CY SA_LK1) was designated for reason of (risk of) eutrophication due to nitrogen and phosphorus, whereas Kokkinochoria coastline (CY SA_CM2) was designated for criterion a (nitrogen) and c (Nitrates Directive).
6.4.3
For reference date 31 December 2007 Cyprus reported 57 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 860,000 p.e.. As it can be seen from Table 18, 13 of these agglomerations (or 52.9% of the total generated load) have a collecting system in place, 13 of the total agglomerations (or 52.9% of the total generated load) have installations for secondary and more stringent treatment in place. Cyprus did not provide monitoring results so far and will report monitoring data for the agglomerations starting from the deadline of implementation.
Cyprus (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) + Art 5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 57 13 13 NA 13 NA Generated load (p.e.) 860,000 454,672 454,672 NA 463,912 NA
[%] 100.0 22.8 22.8 NA 22.8 NA
[%] 100.0 52,9 52,9 NA 53.9 NA
Table 18: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Cyprus as reported for reference date 31 December 2007 . Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).
69
6.4.4
Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas
Two agglomerations (Ayia Napa and Paralimni) were reported to discharge (part of) their waste water into sensitive areas. All agglomerations have a collecting system in place. Secondary treatment as well as more stringent treatment installations were reported for both agglomerations, but monitoring results do not comply with the treatment requirements. The fraction collected in collecting system enters treatment plants with installations for Nand P-removal in place. As compliance with Article 3, 4 and 5 was not required by 31 December 2007 for any of the agglomerations, no compliance check was elaborated for all agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas. Limassol, which reported their waste water to be discharged into a sensitive area in the last Implementation Report, was reported to discharge the waste water partly to land (catchment of freshwater, coastal water), as well as to coastal and freshwater.
Cyprus (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) + Art 5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 2 2 2 NA 2 NA Generated load (p.e.)
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 NA 100.0 NA
[%]
73,000 100.0 68,450 68,450 NA 68,450 NA 93.8 93.8 NA 93.8 NA
Table 19: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Cyprus discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
6.4.5
For the reference year 2007 Cyprus reported 55 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. discharging into a normal area. For only 11 of them a collecting system was in place. In general, the generated load collected in collecting system enters UWWTPs providing secondary treatment in combination with other more stringent treatment (e.g. chlorination or sand filtration).
Cyprus (reference date 2007/12/31) Normal Areas Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment Number of agglomerations 55 11 11 NA Generated load (p.e.) 787,800 386,222 386,222 NA
[%] 100.0 20.0 20.0 NA
[%] 100.0 49,1 49.2 NA
70
More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
11 NA
20.0 NA
386,222 NA
49.1 NA
Table 20: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Cyprus discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
6.4.6
Waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers
The only big city/ big discharger is Nicosia (220,000 p.e.), which is connected to three UWWTPs in the reference year 2007. 65,8% of the entire generated load of Nicosia are collected in collecting system and have secondary and more stringent treatment installations in place in UWWTP Mia Milia and Anthoupolis. 4.2 % are addressed through IAS and transported to UWWTP Central Vathia Gonia by truck (information of 5th UWWTD Implementation Report), where other more stringent treatment is provided. 30% of the entire generated load of Nicosia are not collected in a collecting system and not treated through IAS.
6.5 Czech Republic

Czech Republic submitted information in May 2010. The reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2008. Although some minor corrections of the dataset were necessary, no major errors and inconsistencies were found in the data reported by Czech Republic. The transitional periods for Czech Republic had been 01 May 2004 for 18 agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. and 31 December 2006 for 36 agglomerations. The final deadline is 31 December 2010. This is the reason, why only those 54 agglomerations have been assessed as regards compliance of Article 3, 4 and 5 and why information as regards all other agglomerations with a size of 2,000 p.e. or more solely describes the present status of waste water treatment.
6.5.2
Receiving Areas
Sensitive Areas Czech Republic applies Article 5(8) and Article 5(2,3) for the entire territory for reason of eutrophication (nitrogen and phosphorus), sensitive areas therefore do not need to be identified. Normal areas Since Czech Republic applies Article 5(8) and Article 5(2,3) for the entire territory for reason of eutrophication (nitrogen and phosphorus), normal areas therefore do not exist.
6.5.3
Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) areas
For reference date 31 December 2008 Czech Republic reported 618 agglomerations 10,000 p.e with a generated load of 8,429,183 p.e.
71
As it can be seen from Table 21, 82 % of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. were reported to be collected in a collecting system. 18 % were reported to be neither collected in collecting system nor addressed through IAS. For 79.9% of the generated load secondary treatment installations are in place, for 73.3% of the generated load more stringent treatment installations are in place. For 25.8% of the generated load monitoring results comply with secondary and more stringent treatment. Assessing the compliance with the requirements of Article 3 results in more than 100% due to the fact that the number of agglomerations which have been reported with an UWWTD deadline of 31 December 2006 or earlier and which are compliant with Article 3 exceed the number of 54 agglomerations. From those 54 agglomerations which are subject to compliance as regards Article 4 as well as from the 51 agglomerations which are subject to compliance as regards Article 5, only 8 with a load of 234,386 p.e. (11% of the load subject to compliance) are compliant. The remaining agglomerations need to be in compliance with Article 3, 4 and 5 until 31 December 2010.
Czech Republic (reference date 2008/12/31) application of Art. 5(2,3,8) (criterion a: N, P) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 8,429,183 6,909,393 6,731,304 2,177,413 6,178,478 2,177,413
[%]
100.0 100.0 96.0 12.6 72.5 12.6
100.0 82.0 79.9 25.8 73.3 25.8
Table 21: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Czech Republic as reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
Czech Republic (reference date 2008/12/31) application of Art. 5(2,3,8) (criterion a: N, P) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable
Number of agglomerations 618 54 67 67 564
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 8,429,183 2,509,018 1,197,963 1,197,963 5,920,165
[%]
100.0 8.7 10.8 124.1 91.3
100.0 29.8 14.2 290.8 70.2
72
Load collected in collecting system [%] (p.e.) Total: Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable during transitional period Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable during transitional period 618 54 8 8 564 51 8 8 107 100.0 8.7 1.3 14.8 91.3 8.3 1.3 15.7 17.3 6,909,393 2,123,464 234,386 234,386 4,785,929 2,106,396 234,386 234,386 3,498,569 100.0 30.7 3.4 11.0 69.3 30.5 3.4 11.1 50.6
Table 22: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Czech Republic reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
6.5.4
Czech Republic documented 4 big cities / big dischargers with a total generated load of 1,591,761 p.e.: Ceske Budejovice, Ostrava, Plzen and Brno. More than 75% of the generated load of the agglomerations Ceske Budejovice (76.4%) and Brno (78.2%) are treated with more stringent treatment with N- and Premoval. For the agglomeration Plzen (97.6%) and for Ostrava (81%) a considerable share of the generated load is treated with more stringent treatment. For Praha 15 agglomerations (4 agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e.) with a total generated load of 107,978 p.e. were reported.
6.6 Denmark
Denmark provided information within the official deadline to report for Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report.The reference date of submitted data is 31 December 2007. Although some minor corrections of the dataset were necessary, no major errors and inconsistencies were found in the data reported by Denmark. In Denmark, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. In this case an agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.
6.6.2
Receiving Areas
Sensitive areas
73
Since 31 December 1993 Denmark applies Article 5(8) and Article 5(2,3) of the Directive and therefore does not have to identify sensitive areas. The parameters subject to more stringent treatment are nitrogen and phosphorus. Normal areas Since Denmark applies Article 5(8) of the Directive, normal areas do not exist.
6.6.3
Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) - areas
For reference date 31 December 2007 Denmark reported 427 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 11,586,145 p.e. 100% of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. were reported to be collected in a collecting system, which means that all agglomerations (100% of the total generated load) were assessed as in compliance with Article 3 of the UWWTD. 97% of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Denmark are subject to Article 4 of the Directive and 99% of this load comply with the treatment requirements. For 67 agglomerations Article 4 is not relevant as their size is between 2,000 p.e and 10,000 p.e and they are discharging into coastal waters. Article 5 is relevant for 89% of the total generated load of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. Out of these 94% of the generated load is in full compliance with more stringent treatment requirements.
Denmark (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(8) and 5(2,3): NP Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 427 427 418 416 394 387
[%] 100.0 100.0 97.9 97.4 92.3 90.6
[%] 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.1 99.1 95.8
Table 23: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Denmark reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Denmark (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(8) and 5(2,3): NP Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Generated load (p.e.) 11,586,145 11,586,145 11,586,145 11,586,145
[%] 100 100 100 100
74
Load collected in collecting system (p.e.) 427 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) 360 355 355 67 171 156 156 100.0 84.3 83.1 98.6 15.7 40.0 36.5 91.2 11,586,145 11,256,625 11,166,194 11,166,194 329,520 10,340,176 9,696,972 9,696,972
[%] 100 97 96 99 3 89 84 94
Table 24: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Denmark reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
6.6.4
Denmark documented 11 big cities/ big dischargers with a total generated load of 3,867,245 p.e. by 31 December 2007: Aalborg, rhus, Esbjerg, Fredericia Centralrens, Herning, Holstebro, Horsens, Kobenhavn, Odense, Randers and Skagen. All of them are compliant with the requirements of Article 3 and 4. All were served by treatment plants with N- and Premoval and are compliant with the requirements of Article 5, with the exception of Skagen. Compared to the 5th Implementation Report by was removed from the list of big cities / big dischargers for reference date 31 December 2007, as the load of the UWWTP has been reduced from 235,000 p.e in Q2007 to 93,000 p.e. in Q2009.
6.7 Estonia
Estonia provided information within the official deadline to report for Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report.The reference date of submitted data is 31 December 2007. Although some minor corrections of the dataset were necessary, no major errors and inconsistencies were found in the data reported by Estonia. In Estonia, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration: UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. In this case an agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements. In Estonia the interim target date to comply with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive is 31 December 2009. At this date all agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. have to comply with the Directive's requirements. The final deadline of the transitional period is 31 December 2010. As compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Directive was not required by 31 December 2007 for any agglomeration, no compliance check was elaborated. The present report solely describes the present status of waste water treatment for all agglomerations with a size of 2,000 p.e. or more.
75
6.7.2
Receiving Areas
Sensitive areas Since 1 May 2004 Estonia applies Article 5(8) and Article 5(2,3) of the Directive and therefore does not have to identify sensitive areas. The parameters subject to more stringent treatment are nitrogen and phosphorus. Normal areas Since Estonia applies Article 5(8) of the Directive, normal areas do not exist.
6.7.3
For reference date 31 December 2007 Estonia reported 42 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 1,384,600 p.e. 89.7% of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. were reported to be collected in a collecting system, whereas 6.76% (93,678 p.e) of the total generated load were reported to be addressed through IAS, and 3.5% (48,503 p.e.) of the total generated load were reported to be not collected in collecting system and not addressed through IAS. However, all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. operate a collecting system in the reference year 2007. Installations for secondary treatment were in place for 82.1% of the total generated load and for 76.4% of the total generated load the installation for more stringent treatment were already in place. Monitoring results comply for 69.3% of the generated load treated with secondary treatment, and for 36.1% of the generated load treated with more stringent treatment.
Estonia (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(8) criterion a: N, P + Art 5(2,3)
Number of agglomerations
[%]
Generated load (p.e.)
[%]
Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
42 42 42 35 31 25
100.0 100.0 100.0 83.3 73.8 59.5
1,384,600 1,242,419 1,136,252 960,130 1,057,406 499,995
100.0 89.7 82.1 69.3 76.4 36.1
Table 25: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Estonia reported for reference date 31 December 2007 .
6.7.4
Waste water treatment in big cities / big dischargers
Estonia documented two big cities / big dischargers with a total generated load of 618,000 p.e. by 31 December 2007. The status of waste water treatment for those big cities / big dischargers was the following:
76
For Kohta-Jrve with a generated load of 168,000 p.e., the major part of the generated load (98%) is treated by more stringent treatment with P-removal, but monitoring results for COD, Ntot and Ptot fail. For Tallinn with a generated load of 450,000 p.e., 98% is treated with more stringent treatment with N- and P-removal, but monitoring results for Ntot fail.
6.8 Finland
6.8.1 General information on data quality
Finland provided one dataset within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report.The reference date of information is 31 December 2007. FI reported that individual agglomerations on the national territory additionally require secondary nitrogen (N) removal, if this is necessary based on the local situation. However, upon requiry the reporters of FI stated that it is not feasible to delineate N sensitive regions. These N-sensitive areas therefore remain undefined and were not reported with GIScoordinates. While the agglomerations considered to require such treatment are included in Finland's report by reporting performance of N-removal, compliance could only be verified on the level of single agglomerations, but not on the level of receiving areas as specified in the Directive. According to FI the rare distribution of larger agglomerations makes such a GIS-delineation hardly feasible. The COM is of the opinion that such approach is not in line with the Directive. If there are sub-regions requiring N removal, the COM assumes that this is because they are sensitive areas; in those cases, all agglomerations having an applicable size according to the Directive and discharging in those areas should apply Article 5(2,3). The COM is of the opinion that just few agglomerations cannot be selected as needing N removal on the basis of the local situation if they discharge in an area which is N sensitive. In Finland, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. In this case an agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.
6.8.2
Receiving Areas
Sensitive areas By 1 January 1994 Finland has decided to implement more stringent treatment (and sensitivity for P) over all its territory pursuant to Article 5(8) and Article 5(2,3) of the Directive. It is therefore not required to identify sensitive areas for the purpose of the Directive. Normal areas Since Finland applies Article 5(8) of the Directive, normal areas do not exist.
6.8.3
For reference date 31 December 2007 Finland reported 181 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 4,989,200 p.e. 99.1% of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. were reported to be collected in a collecting system and 1.04% were addressed through individual and
77
appropriate systems. For this reason, 100% of the total generated load was assessed as being in compliance with Article 3 of UWWTD. As it can be seen from table 27, 98.7% of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. are subject to Article 4, of which 99.9% were in full compliance with the treatment requirements. For 9 agglomerations (56,925 p.e. or 1.2% of the total generated load) Article 4 is not relevant, as the size of the agglomerations is between 2,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. and the respective discharge point is located in coastal waters. 89.4% of the entire generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. is subject to application of Article 5 of the Directive. 100% of the generated load subject to compliance with Article 5 is compliant with more stringent treatment requirements. For 112 agglomerations, Article 5 is of no relevance, as their size is less than 10,000 p.e..
Finland (reference date 30/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(8): P and Art. 5(2,3): additionally Number of agglomerations single agglo's reported as N-sensitive
[%]
[%]
181 181 181 180 181 180
100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 100.0 99.4
4,989,200 4,942,456 4,937,110 4,930,279 4,937,110 4,930,279
100.0 99.1 99.0 98.8 99.0 98.8
Table 26: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Finland reported for reference date 31 December 2005 .
Finland (reference date 30/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(8): P and Art. 5(2,3): additionally single agglo's reported as N-sensitive Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
[%]
[%]
181 181 181 181
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4,989,200 4,989,200 4,989,200 4,989,200 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.) 4,942,456 4,880,185
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4
181 172
100.0 95.0
100.0 98.7
78
- of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(8) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5)
171 171 9 69 69 69
94.5 99.4 5.0 38.1 38.1 100.0
4,873,354 4,873,354 56,925 4,418,568 4,418,568 4,418,568
98.6 99.9 1.2 89.4 89.4 100.0
Table 27: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Finland reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
6.8.4
Finland documented 5 big cities / big dischargers with a size of more than 150,000 p.e and a generated load of 2,106,400 p.e.. Waste water treatment was reported to be performed in the following way: All five big cities are meeting the requirements of Article 3, 4 and 5. Lahti and Helsinki are equipped with more stringent treatment (with nitrogen- and phosphorus removal), while a major part of Turku is equipped with more stringent treatment with nitrogen- and phosphorus removal. Pori and Tampere do only have phosphorus removal in place.
6.9 France
France provided one dataset within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Reportwhich was re-submitted with some corrections beginning of May 2010. The reference date is 31 December 2008. The main mistakes found in the dataset submitted by France were: imbalances among associated wastewater flows were accounted; the cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system. The components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%. Furthermore, for some areas there were discrepancies between the spatial information reported and the situation as shown by submitted GIS files. Information on treatment type and related monitoring resulte were partly missing for some agglomerations. Furthermore, for individual agglomerations applying Article 5(4) data was reported without incoming and discharged loads for Ntot and Ptot. In France, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. In this case an agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.
6.9.2
Receiving Areas
Sensitive areas
79
France applies Articles 5(2) and 5(3) to 48 sensitive areas, and Article 5(4) for 17. France had reported the designation of 65 sensitive areas (date for designation/last review reported in years 1994, 1999, 2005 and 2006). In one agglomeration that discharges to Luxembourg (Ottange), France applies Article 5(8) and Article 5(2,3) for nitrogen and phosphorus.
6.9.3
For reference date 31 December 2008 France reported 3,193 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 69,309,346 p.e. The entire generated load of agglomerations complies with Article 3 of the Directive (69,309,346 p.e.). From those agglomerations that should meet Article 4 requirements (99.4% of the entire generated load), a 64.3% fully comply with the requirements of the Directive. For 82 agglomerations with a generated load of 396,871 p.e. Article 4 is not relevant, as the agglomerations have a size between 2,000 p.e and 10,000 p.e and are discharging into coastal waters. 223 agglomerations (i.e. the 14.5% of the generated load of all agglomerations beyond 2,000 p.e.) are subject to compliance with Article 5 of the Directive, of which 55.6% comply with the treatment requirements. For 205 agglomerations (i.e. 29.7% of the entire generated load) the compliance criteria for Article 5 is not assessed due to the transitional periods still in force in relation to their designation. Those 247 agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas which apply Article 5(4), generating a load of 12,025,564 p.e (17.4% of the total generated load), are not subject to compliance criteria of Article 5(2,3). The results of the historical assessment are included in the figures of the summary tables below. The summary tables on normal areas, sensitive areas and Article 5(4) areas include all agglomerations which discharged in the respective area according to data reported in Q2009. Agglomerations reported as discharging into a normal area in Q2009, but reported as discharging into a sensitive area in former reports, are presented in the summary tables for agglomerations discharging in normal areas under the category Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) due to historical assessment of SA/ CSA.
France (reference date 31/12/2008) Application of Art. 5(4) and of Art. 5(1,2,3)
[%]
[%]
3,193 3,193 3,061 2,661 2,464 538
100.0 100.0 95.9 83.3 77.2 16.8
69,309,346 69,309,346 66,836,745 51,635,356 53,750,646 34,859,361
100.0 100.0 96.4 74.5 77.6 50.3
Table 28: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France as reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
80
France (reference date 31/12/2008) Application of Art. 5(4) and of Art. 5(1,2,3) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
Number of agglomerations 3,193 3,193 3,193 3,193
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to pending transitional period of SA/CSA designated after 2001/12/31) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 (1,2,3) not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
3,193 3,111 2,471 2,471 82 223 131 131 205 247
100.0 97.4 77.4 79.4 2.6 7.0 4.1 58.7 6.4 7.7
69,309,346 68,915,475 44,343,165 44,343,165 393,871 10,080,163 5,606,173 5,606,173 20,599,480 12,025,564
100.0 99.4 64.0 64.3 0.6 14.5 8.1 55.6 29.7 17.4
Table 29: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into different receiving areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
6.9.4
Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, where Article 5(4) is applied
As concerns the minimum reduction rates required under Article 5(4), France is in full compliance with Article 5(4). The agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas designated under Article 5(4) were additionally checked for compliance with secondary treatment level and complying monitoring results for BOD and COD. 100% of the total generated load was reported to be collected in collecting systems, which means that all agglomerations comply with Article 3 of the Directive. 88.7% of the total load of agglomerations discharging into areas designated under Article 5(4) was in compliance with Article 4. For 0.3% of the generated load Article 4 was not relevant, as the agglomerations have a size between 2,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. and discharge into coastal water.
81
France (reference date 31/12/2008) Application of Art. 5(4)
[%]
[%]
828 828 803 739 705 232
100.0 25.9 25.1 23.1 22.1 7.3
14,564,779 14,564,779 14,365,881 13,385,497 13,643,272 11,040,866
100.0 100.0 98.6 91.9 93.7 75.8
Table 30: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas where Article 5(4) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
France (reference date 31/12/2008) Application of Art. 5(4) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Compliance criteria for Art. 5 (1,2,3) not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
828 820 700 700 8 247
100.0 99.0 84.5 85.4 1.0 29.8
14,564,779 14,524,239 12,886,804 12,886,804 40,540 12,025,564
100.0 99.7 88.5 88.7 0.3 82.6
Table 31: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas where Article 5(4) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
82
6.9.5
Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, where Article 5(2,3) is applied
131 agglomerations with a total generated load of 2,214,073 p.e discharge into areas designated with sensitivity P and 1,230 agglomerations with a total generated load of 31,731,409 p.e. discharge into areas designated with sensitivity N and P, where Article 5(2,3) applies. 100% of the total generated load was reported to be collected in collecting systems, which means that all agglomerations comply with Article 3 of the Directive. As regards the load of the 131 agglomerations discharging into a sensitive area designated under criterion P and subject to the requirements of Article 4 and 5, 57.5% of the load complies with the requirements of Article 4 and 30.1% of the load comply with the requirements of Article 5. As regards the load of the 1,230 agglomerations discharging into a sensitive area designated under criteria P and N and subject to the requirements of Article 4 and 5, 60.6% of the load complies with the requirements of Article 4, while 67.7% comply with the requirements of Article 5. 36 agglomerations are not subject to Article 4 as their size is between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e and as those agglomerations discharge into coastal waters. For 205 agglomerations discharging into a sensitive area designated under criteria P and N the compliance criteria for Article 5 are not yet applicable due to the pending transitional period of the designation / last review of the SA.
France (reference date 31/12/2008) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3)
[%]
[%]
131 131 130 111 118 4
100.0 100.0 99.2 84.7 90.1 3.1
2,214,073 2,214,073 2,197,622 2,022,663 2,145,264 78,084
100.0 100.0 99.3 91.4 96.9 3.5
Table 32: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas (P) where Article 5(2,3) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
France (reference date 31/12/2008) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) Total
Number of agglomerations 131
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 2,214,073
[%]
100.0
100.0
83
Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
131 131 131
100.0 100.0 100.0
2,214,073 2,214,073 2,214,073 Load collected in collecting systems (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5)
131 131 97 97 0 36 20 20
100.0 100.0 74.0 74.0 0.0 27.5 15.3 55.6
2,214,073 2,214,073 1,272,848 1,272,848 0 1,792,395 539,580 539,580
100.0 100.0 57.5 57.5 0.0 81.0 24.4 30.1
Table 33: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas (P) where Article 5(2,3) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008 .
France (reference date 31/12/2008) Application of Art. 5(4) and of Art. 5(1,2,3)
[%]
[%]
1,230 1,230 1,218 1,097 1,047 282
100.0 100.0 99.0 89.2 85.1 22.9
31,731,409 31,731,409 31,580,649 23,255,773 28,127,985 23,411,348
100.0 100.0 99.5 73.3 88.6 73.8
Table 34: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas (N and P) where A rticle 5(2,3) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
France (reference date 31/12/2008) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) Total
Number of agglomerations 1,230
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 31,731,409
[%]
100.0
100.0
84
1,230 1,230 1,230
100.0 100.0 100.0
31,731,409 31,731,409 31,731,409 Load collected in collecting systems (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to pending transitional period of SA/CSA designated after 2001/12/31)
1,230 1,194 1,037 1,037 36 161 111 111 205
100.0 97.1 84.3 86.9 2.9 13.1 9.0 68.9 16.7
31,731,409 31,552,779 19,115,125 19,115,125 178,630 7,478,723 5,066,593 5,066,593 20,599,480
100.0 99.4 60.2 60.6 0.6 23.6 16.0 67.7 64.9
Table 35: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into sensitive areas (N and P) where Article 5(2,3) is applied, as reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
6.9.6
1,004 agglomerations with a total generated load of 20,799,085 p.e. discharge into normal areas. 53.7% of the generated load is in compliance with Article 4 of the Directive. Article 5 is not relevant for agglomerations discharging into normal areas.
France (reference date 31/12/2008) Normal areas Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 1,004 1,004 910 714 594 20 Generated load (p.e.) 20,799,085 20,799,085 18,692,593 12,971,422 9,834,124 329,063
[%] 100.0 100.0 90.6 71.1 59.2 2.0
[%] 100.0 100.0 89.9 62.4 47.3 1.6
Table 36: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2008. Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).
85
France (reference date 31/12/2008) Normal areas Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable1
Number of agglomerations 1,004 1,004 1,004 1,004 0
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 20,799,085 20,799,085 20,799,085 20,799,085 0
[%]
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
Load collected in collecting [%] systems (p.e.)
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) due to historical assessement of SA/ CSA - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5)
1,004 966 637 637 38 26 0 0
100.0 96.2 63.4 65.9 3.8 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20,799,085 20,624,384 11,068,388 11,068,388 174,701 809,045 0 0 0 0
100.0 99.2 53.2 53.7 0.8 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to pending 0 transitional period of SA/CSA designated after 2001/12/31) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 (1,2,3) not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4) 0
Table 37: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in France discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
6.9.7
France documented 56 big cities / big dischargers by 31 December 2008 with a total generated load of 29,393,136 p.e.. All 56 big cities / big dischargers have a 100% collection rate and are therefore compliant with Article 3. Frejus has only primary treatment in place. 9 big cities / big dischargers have only secondary treatment and no installations for more stringent treatment in place: Lyon, Lille, Nice, Le Havre, Dijon, Toulon, Angers, Perpignan and Chambery.
86
Marseille-Aix-en-Provence has secondary treatment in place for 100% of the generated load, and for only 9.4% of the generated load more stringent treatment installations are in place. For 38 big cities and 10,281,949 p.e of the generated load more stringent treatment is available. 25 Big cities / big dischargers with a total generated load of 17,366,150 p.e. were reported to discharge into a sensitive area designated under Article 5(2,3) of the Directive: Angers, Brest, Caen, Cergy-Pontoise, Evry, Lagny-sur-Marne, Laval, Le Havre, Le Mans, Lille, Limoges, Melun, Montpellier, Nantes, Paris, Quimper, Reims, Rodez, Roubaix, Rouen, Sarcelles, Toulouse, Tours, Troyes, Versailles. Montpellier only reported 1.7% and Brest only 74.7% of its generated load treated by more stringent treatment. 97.2% of the generated load of Paris is treated by more stringent treatment. All other big cities are equipped with more stringent treatment installations of the entire share of their load. 16 big cities / big dischargers with a generated load of 5,793,867 p.e. were reported to discharge into a Article 5(4) area: Amiens, Boulogne-sur-Mer, Calais, ClermontFerrand, Colmar, Dijon, Dunkerque Couderque-Branche, Marseille-Aix-enProvence, Metz, Mulhouse, Nancy, Orleans, Rennes, Roanne, Saint Etienne, Strasbourg. Only secondary treatment, but not more stringent treatment installations are reported for Dijon. Only 9.4% of the generated load of Marseille-Aix-n-Provence is treated by more stringent treatment. 82,8 % of the generated load of ClermontFerrand is treated by secondary and more stringent treatment. The remaining 15 big cities / big discharger with a total generated load of 6,233,119 p.e. were reported to discharge into normal areas: Annecy, Beziers, Biarritz Bayonne, Bordeaux, Brive-La-Gaillarde, Chambery, Frejus, Grasse-CannesAntibes, Grenoble, La Rochelle, Lyon, Nice, Pau, Perpignan, Toulon. For Grasse only 43.6% of the total generated load, for Bordeaux 80.3% of the total generated load is treated by secondary treatment. Paris (9,901,000 p.e.) was reported as one agglomeration served by five UWWTPs (Seine Aval, Seine Gr-sillons, Seine-centre, Seine-amont and Marne Aval). 100% of the total generated total load was reported to be served by secondary treatment but only 36.8% complied with the monitoring results. 13.67% of the total generated load was reported to be served by N- and P-removal and monitoring results complied with the more stringent treatment requirements. 83.51% of the total generated load were reported to have P-removal, but monitoring results of Ntot failed. The remaining 2.82% of the total generated load only had secondary treatment installations in place, but failed in all monitoring results. The waste water treatment of Paris must therefore be assessed as being not satisfying.
Compared to the list of big cities reported in the 5th Implementation Report the situation has changed as follows: Three big cities reported in the Fifth Implementation Report, were not reported as big cities / big discharger for the Sixth Implementation Report, as their size has been decreased under 150,000 p.e.: Faches-Thumesnil (130.800 p.e.), Macon (136.300 p.e.) and Lens (129.939 p.e.). Seven big cities/ big dischargers were considered as big cities / big dischargers for the first time in the Sixth Implementation Report: Beziers, Biarritz Bayonne, Bordeaux, Dunkerque Coudekerque Branche, Nantes, Pau, and Roanne.
87
6.10 Germany
Germany submitted information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report and re-submitted a corrected dataset in May 2010. The reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2008. The main inconsistencies in the dataset reported by Germany were found in the imbalance among associated waste water flows for some agglomerations. The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system. The components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%. In Germany, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used. An agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.
6.10.2 Receiving Areas

Sensitive areas By 1 July 1991 Germany has designated the entire drainage area of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea in their territory as sensitive area and by 1 January 1999 Germany decided to apply Article 5(8) and Article 5(4), which means the requirement of a 75% removal rate for total nitrogen and total phosphorus for the whole country. Therefore, sensitive areas do not need to be identified. Normal areas As Germany applies Article 5(8) and 5(4) of the UWWTD, normal areas do not exist.
6.10.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(4) areas

For reference date 31 December 2008 Germany reported 4,193 agglomerations 2,000 p.e.with a generated load of 113,957,689 p.e. For 97.8% of the entire generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. a collecting system is in place. The remaining 2.19% (2,495,810 p.e.) are addressed through individual and appropriate systems, which means that 100% of the generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. are considered compliant with Article 3. From those agglomerations, which are due to compliance with Article 4, 99.8% fully comply with the requirements of the Directive. In the reference year 2008 total N was reduced by 81% and total P by 90%, which means that Germany complies with Article 5(4) of the Directive.
Germany (reference date 31/12/2008) Application of Article 5(8) and Article 5(4) Number of agglomerations
[%]
[%]
88
4193 4193 4180 4157 3707 4132
100.0 100.0 99.7 99.1 88.4 98.5
113,957,689 111,461,879 110,718,481 110,559,739 109,134,988 107,207,021
100.0 97.8 97.2 97 95.8 94.1
Table 38: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Germany as reported for reference date 31 December 2008 .
Germany (reference date 31/12/2008) Application of Article 5(8) and Article 5(4)
[%]
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
4,193 4,193 4,193 4,193
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
113,957,689 113,957,689 113,957,689 113,957,689
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Load coll, in collecting system (p.e.)
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Compliance criteria for Art. 5(2,3) not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
4,193 4,170 4,141 4,141
100.0 99.5 98.8 99.3
111,461,879 111,347,618 111,078,095 111,078,095
100.0 99.9 99.7 99.8
23 4,193
0.5 100.0
114,261 111,461,879
0.1 100.0
Table 39: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Germany reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
6.10.4 Waste water treatment in big cities / big dischargers

As of 31 December 2008 Germany documented 102 big cities / big dischargers with a total generated load of 48,425,546 p.e.. For 98.5% of the generated load secondary treatment and more stringent treatment installations are in place. All big cities / big dischargers are assessed as in compliance with Article 3 and 4.
89
Compared to the list of big cities reported in the 5th Implementation Report the situation has changed as follows: 13 big cities reported in the Fifth Implementation Report, were not reported as big cities / big dischargers for the Sixth Implementation Report, as their size decreased below the threshold value of more than 150,000 p.e.: Bhl und Umgebung, Nordhorn, Coesfeld, Rheda-Wiedenbrck, Tbingen, Wismar, Wieseverband, Schwetzingen-Ketsch, Neumnster, Holzminden, Rheine-Nord, Wolfsburg and Bblingen-Sindelfingen. Seven big cities/ big dischargers were considered as big cities/ big dischargers for the first time: ZV Amberg-Kuemmersbruck Sitz Amberg, Jena, Cloppenburg, Unteres Sulmtal, Gemeinschaftsklranlage Bayer. Untermain GmbH, DortmundScharnhorst, Schwerin, Heilbronn as their size increased to more than 150,000 p.e..
6.11 Greece
Greece submitted information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Reportand re-submitted a corrected dataset in May 2010. The reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2007. Although a correction and revision round for the submitted data was necessary, no major errors and inconsistencies in the data submitted by Greece were found. In Greece, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used. An agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.
6.11.2 Receiving areas

Sensitive areas Greece applies Article 5(2,3) of the Directive and has designated 46 sensitive areas as well as 34 catchment of sensitive areas in 1999 (with the exception of SA Inner Saronic Gulf, which was designated in 2002 and CSA Khfissos Attikhs and Anthemous). Some of the catchment of sensitive areas also cover one or more sensitive area(s).
6.11.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas

For reference date 31 December 2007 Greece reported 245 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 11,261,988 p.e.. 169 of these agglomerations (or 87.2% of the total generated load) have a collecting system as well as installations for secondary treatment in place. However it can be noted that in some other agglomerations collecting systems are already in place, but not operational. For 145 agglomerations (or 85.8% of the total generated load) more stringent treatment is in place. All agglomerations are compliant with Article 3 of the Directive, but 185 out of 245 agglomerations (or 43% of the total generated load) are of questionable compliance due to the fact that more than 2 % or more than 2,000 p.e. are collected and addressed through IAS.
90
139 agglomerations of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. are subject to the waste water treatment requirements under Article 4 of the Directive. Out of these 77 agglomerations and 95.7% of the subjected load is compliant with the requirements of Article 4. 30 agglomerations are not subject to compliance as their size lies between 2,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. and they discharge into coastal water. For 76 agglomerations (and 615,779 p.e.), for which the entire load is collected and addressed through IAS, Article 4 does not apply. 13 of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 406,350 p.e. are subject to Article 5. Out of these 11 agglomerations (and 83.5% of the subjected load) are compliant with the requirements of Article 5. For 3 agglomerations with a load of 6,284,367 p.e are not yet applicable to compliance with Article 5 as the transitional period is pending due to the designation / last review of the SA.
Greece (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) crit.a:N,P and Art. 5(2,3)
[%]
[%]
245 169 169 80 145 78
100.0 69.0 69.0 32.7 59.2 31.8
11,261,988 9,819,847 9,819,847 9,293,538 9,666,407 9,226,538
100.0 87.2 87.2 82.5 85.8 81.9
Table 40: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece reported for reference date 31 December 2007 .
[%]
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) - of which: questionable compliance with Art.3 (because > 2 % or > 2,000 p.e. enter IAS)
245 245 245 245 185
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.5
11,261,988 11,261,988 11,261,988 11,261,988 4,839,878
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 43.0
Load collected in [%] collecting system (p.e.)
91
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because entire load of agglo enters IAS Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable because entire load of agglo enters IAS Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable during pending transitional periods for SA/CSA designated after 2,000/12/31)
245 139 77 77
100.0 56.7 31.4 55.4
9,819,847 9,700,915 9,280,433 9,280,433
100.0 98.8 94.5 95.7
30
12.2
118,932
1.2
76 13 11 11 1 3
31.0 5.3 4.5 84.6 0.4 1.2
615779 (gen, load) 406,350 339,350 339,350 80000 (gen, load) 6,284,367 64.0 4.1 3.5 83.5
Table 41: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece reported for reference date 31 December 2007
6.11.4 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

7 agglomerations with a total generated load of 6,412,591 p.e discharge into sensitive areas designated under criterion N and 26 agglomerations with a total generated load of 497,196 p.e. discharge into sensitive areas designated under criteria N and P, where Article 5(2,3) applies. 100% of the total generated load was reported to be collected in collecting systems, which means that all agglomerations comply with Article 3 of the Directive. As regards the load of the 7 agglomerations discharging into a sensitive area designated under criterion N, 3 agglomerations subject to compliance with Article 4 are in full compliance with the respective requirements. Three agglomerations are not subject to compliance as their size is between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e and they are discharging into coastal waters. For one agglomeration the entire load of is treated through IAS and therefore not applicable to compliance with Article 4. Article 5 is not applicable yet either because the entire load is treated though IAS (one agglomeration) or because transitional periods due to the designation / last review date of SA are still pending (3 agglomerations). As regards the load of the 26 agglomerations discharging into a sensitive area designated under criteria N and P, 19 agglomerations are subject to compliance with Article 4. Out of those 14 agglomerations with a subjected load of 415,350 are compliant with the requirements of Article 4. For 7 agglomerations the entire load of is treated through IAS and therefore not applicable to compliance with Article 4. 13 agglomerations (406,350 p.e) are subject to Article 5, whereas 83.5% of the subjected load is in compliance with the requirements of Article 5.
92
Greece (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) crit.a:N and Art. 5(2,3)
[%]
[%]
7 6 6 3 6 3
100.0 85.7 85.7 42.9 85.7 42.9
6,412,591 6,296,610 6,296,610 6,284,367 6,296,610 6,284,367
100.0 98.2 98.2 98.0 98.2 98.0
Table 42: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into sensitive areas (N) reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
[%]
[%]
7 7 7 7 6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 85.7
6,412,591 6,412,591 6,412,591 6,412,591 1,012,591 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 15.8
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because entire load of agglo enters IAS
7 3 3 3
100.0 42.9 42.9 0.0
6,296,610 6,284,367 6,284,367 6,284,367
100.0 99.8 99.8 100.0
42.9
12,243
0.2
14.3
80000 (gen, load)
93
Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable because entire load of agglo enters IAS Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable during pending transitional periods for SA/CSA designated after 2,000/12/31) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
0 0 0 1 3 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 42.9 0.0
0 0 0 80000 (gen, load) 6,284,367 0
0.0 0.0 0.0
99.8 0
Table 43: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into sensitive areas (N) reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Greece (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) crit.a:N,P and Art. 5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
[%] 100.0 73.1 73.1 53.8 61.5 46.2
Generated load (p.e.) 497,196 435,043 435,043 415,350 379,240 348,350
[%] 100.0 87.5 100.0 95.5 91.3 70.1
Table 44: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into sensitive areas (N and P) reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Greece (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) crit.a:N,P and Art. 5(2,3) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) - of which: questionable compliance with Art.3 (because > 2 % or > 2,000 p.e. enter IAS)
[%] 100.0 100.0 10.6 100.0 69.2
Generated load (p.e.) 497,196 497,196 497,196 497,196 343,492
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 69.1
Load collected in [%] collecting system (p.e.) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) 26 19 14 100.0 73.1 53.8 435,043 435,043 415,350 100.0 100.0 95.5
94
- of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because entire load of agglo enters IAS Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable because entire load of agglo enters IAS Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
14 7 13 11 11 0 0
73.7 26.9 50.0 42.3 84.6 0.0 0.0
415,350 35634 (gen, load) 406,350 339,350 339,350 0 (gen, load) 0
95.5
93.4 78.0 83.5
Table 45: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into sensitive areas (N and P) reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
6.11.5 Agglomerations discharging into normal areas

212 agglomerations with a total generated load of 4,352,201 p.e. discharge into normal areas. All agglomerations are in compliance with Article 3. 86.6% of the load subject to Article 4 is in compliance with Article 4 of the Directive. Article 5 is not relevant for agglomerations discharging into normal areas.
Greece (reference date 2007/12/31) Normal Areas
[%]
[%]
212 144 144 63 123 63
100.0 67.9 67.9 29.7 58.0 29.7
4,352,201 3,088,195 3,088,195 2,593,822 2,990,557 2,593,822
100.0 71.0 71.0 59.6 68.7 59.6
Table 46: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Greece (reference date 2007/12/31) Normal Areas
[%]
[%]
95
212 212 212 212 161
100.0 86.5 86.5 100.0 75.9
4,352,201 4,352,201 4,352,201 4,352,201 3,483,795 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because entire load of agglo enters IAS Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable because entire load of agglo enters IAS Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
212 117 60 60
100.0 55.2 28.3 51.3
3,088,195 2,981,506 2,580,716 2,580,716
100.0 96.5 83.6 86.6
27
12.7
106,689
3.5
68 0 0 0 0 0
32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
500,145 (generated load) 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Table 47: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Greece discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
6.11.6 Waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers

Greece documented 6 big cities / big dischargers (7,270,000 p.e. total generated load) with a size of more than 150,000 p.e.: Patra, Volos, Iraklio Crete, Metamorphosi, Thessaloniki and Athina. 6,804,700 p.e. are collected in a collecting system and 465,300 p.e. are addressed through IAS. As more than 2 % and/or more than 2,000 p.e. are collected and addressed through IAS, Patra, Volos, Iraklio Crete, Metamorphosi and Thessaloniki are assessed as having questionable compliance with Article 3. Only for Athina 100% of the generated load is collected in a collecting system.
96
6,804,700 p.e. are compliant with the monitoring results for secondary treatment, therefore all 6 big cities / big dischargers are compliant with Article 4. Thessaloniki and Athina discharge into a sensitive area: Thessaloniki Gulf (Thessaloniki) and Inner Saronic Gulf (Athina). All other four big cities / big dischargers discharge into a normal area and requirements of Article 5(2,3) are not to be applied.
6.12 Hungary
Hungary submitted information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Reportand re-submitted a corrected dataset beginning of May 2010. The reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2007.. The main inconsistencies in the dataset reported by Hungary were found in the imbalance among associated waste water flows for some agglomerations. The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system. The components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%. In Hungary, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. In this case an agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements. In Hungary the interim target dates to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive is 31 December 2008 (for agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas) and 31 December 2010 (for agglomerations with more than 15,000 p.e. discharging into normal areas). The final deadline of the transitional period is 31 December 2015. As compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Directive was not required by 1 January 2008 for any agglomeration, no compliance check was elaborated. The present report solely describes the present status of waste water treatment for all agglomerations with a size of 2,000 p.e. or more.

Sensitive areas In December 2004 Hungary designated Lake Balaton and its catchment, the Hungarian part of Lake Neusiedl / Fert t and its catchment as well as Lake Velence and its catchment as sensitive areas under Article 5(2,3) - designation criterion a (risk of eutrophication, relevant parameters nitrogen and phosphorus) and designation criterion b (surface freshwaters intended for the abstraction of drinking water). With the accession of Romania to the European Union in January 2007 the necessity of designating sensitive areas and catchments of sensitive areas has changed. As the Black Sea has the character of a sensitive area due to eutrophication, the catchment area of the Black Sea needs to be identified as catchment of sensitive area according to Article 5(5) of the UWWTD. This means, that more stringent treatment has to be established for all agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. or that a minimum reduction rate of 75% for total nitrogen and total phosphorus (application of Article 5(4) of the Directive) needs to be achieved for the entire generated load entering waste water treatment plants, with the provisions set out in Article 9 of the Directive. As the entire territory of Hungary belongs to
97
the catchment of the Black Sea, Hungary needs to take these new requirements into account in the future.
6.12.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas (Article 5(2,3))
For reference date 31 December 2007 Hungary reported 497 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 13,231,718 p.e.. For 82.3% of the entire generated load of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. a collecting system was reported as in place, with the remaining fraction being addressed through IAS. Secondary treatment installations are in place for 66.3% of the total generated load, while for 59.1% of the entire generated load more stringent treatment is in place. Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment for 74.3% of the total generated load, while monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment for 52.2% of the total generated load.
Hungary (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 497 495 488 363 408 316 Generated load (p.e.) 13,231,718 10,884,560 8,777,060 9,832,886 7,822,691 6,905,422
[%] 100.0 99.6 98.2 73.0 82.1 63.6
[%] 100.0 82.3 66.3 74.3 59.1 52.2
Table 48: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Hungary as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

18 agglomerations with a total generated load of 448,289 p.e are discharging into sensitive areas. For 85.3% of the total generated load a collecting system as well as secondary and more stringent treatment is reported as in place. For 83.8% of the entire generated load monitoring results comply with secondary treatment, while only for 45.3% of the entire generated load monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment.
Hungary (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Number of agglomerations 18 18 18 Generated load (p.e.) 100.0 100.0 100.0 448,289 382,605 382,605
[%]
[%] 100.0 85.3 85.3
98
Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
16 18 14
88.9 100.0 77.8
375,608 382,605 202,973
83.8 85.3 45.3
Table 49: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Hungary discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

479 agglomerations with a total generated load of 12,783,429 p.e are discharging into normal areas. For 82.2% of the total generated load a collecting system is reported as in place. For 65.7% secondary treatment is in place, more stringent treatment installations are in place for 58.2% of the entire generated load. For 74% of the entire generated load monitoring results comply with secondary treatment, while for 52.4% of the entire generated load monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment.
Hungary (reference date 2007/12/31) Normal Areas Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 479 477 470 347 390 302 Generated load (p.e.) 12,783,429 10,501,955 8,394,456 9,457,277 7,440,087 6,702,449
[%] 100.0 99.6 98.1 72.4 81.4 63.0
[%] 100.0 82.2 65.7 74.0 58.2 52.4
Table 50: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Hungary discharging into normal areas as reported fo r reference date 31 December 2007.

On 31 December 2007 Hungary reported 14 big cities/ big dischargers with a total generated load of 6,408,335 p.e.. 13 big cities / big dischargers discharge into a normal area (Kaposvr, Szolnok, Gyr, Bkscsaba, Szombathely, Szkesfehrvr, Kecskemt, Miskolc, Szeged, Nyregyhza, Pcs, Debrecen and Budapest), whereas Zalaegerszeg discharges in the sensitive area Balaton s vzgyjtje and is applied with more stringent treatment (nitrogen and phosphorus) for a majority of the generated load (for 79.8%). According to the information provided by Hungary the situation concerning waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers was as follows:
99
For Zalaegerszeg, 88% of the total generated load is collected and have installations for secondary and more stringent treatment (nitrogen and phosphorus) in place for 79.8% of the generated load. Budapest (3,243,468 p.e.) is served by five WWTPs (2 inactive and 3 active) and was reported with 95.0% collected waste water and secondary and more stringent treatment installations in place for 30.6% of the entire generated load. The following agglomerations are reported in the Sixth Implementation Report as big cities / big dischargers for the first time: Kaposvr, Szolnok, Gyr, Bkscsaba, Zalaegerszeg and Szeged.
6.13 Ireland
Ireland submitted information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (7 January 2010). The reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2007. No major errors and inconsistencies in the data reported by Ireland were found. In Ireland, one agglomeration is served by one urban waste water treatment plant which means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : 1] is used.

Sensitive areas Ireland applies Article 5(2,3) of the Directive and has designated 49 sensitive areas and their respective catchment of sensitive areas, with sensitivity to nitrogen and phosporus.

For reference date 31 December 2007 Ireland reported 187 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 5,574,200 p.e.. All agglomerations have a collecting system in place. 151 of these agglomerations (or 90.9% of the total generated load) have installations for secondary treatment in place, while 79 installations (or 18.7% of the total generated load) have more stringent treatment installations in place. All agglomerations are compliant with Article 3 of the Directive. 168 agglomerations (or 98.3 % of the entire generated load) of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. are subject to the waste water treatment requirements under Article 4 of the Directive. 19 agglomerations are not subject to compliance as their size lies between 2,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. and they discharge into coastal water. 72 agglomerations with a generated load of 1,138,600 are compliant with Article 4. 14 agglomerations with a generated load of 3,244,341 p.e. are subject to Article 5(2,3), whereas no agglomeration is compliant with the requirements of more stringent treatment. 20 agglomerations (1,091,240 p.e.) are not yet applicable to the requirements of Article 5 due to pending transitional periods of the designation / last review of SA and respective CSA. The results of the historical assessment are included in the figures of the summary tables below. The summary tables on normal areas and sensitive areas include all
100
agglomerations, which discharged in the respective area according to data reported in Q2009. Agglomerations reported as discharging into a normal area in Q2009, but reported as discharging into a sensitive area in former reports, are presented in the summary tables for agglomerations discharging in normal areas under the category Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) due to historical assessment of SA/ CSA.
Ireland (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) crit. a: N,P + Art.5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 187 187 151 81 79 84
[%] 100.0 100.0 80.7 43.3 42.2 44.9
[%] 100.0 100.0 90.9 21.6 18.7 18.2
Table 51: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Ireland (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) crit. a: N,P + Art.5(2,3)
[%]
[%]
187 187 187 187
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5,574,200 5,574,200 5,574,200 5,574,200 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.)
187 168 72 72
100.0 89.8 38.5 42.9
5,574,200 5,477,892 1,138,600 1,138,600
100.0 98.3 20.4 20.8
19 14 0
10.2 7.5 0.0
96,308 3,244,341 0
1.7 58.2 0.0
101
- of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) not applicable due to pending transitional period for SA/CSA designated after 2000/12/31
0.0
0.0
20
10.7
1,091,240
19.6
Table 52: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

94 agglomerations with a total generated load of 4,593,483 p.e discharge into sensitive areas. All agglomerations comply with the requirements of Article 3. Only 48 agglomerations and 18.5% of the subjected load comply with the secondary treatment requirements of Article 4. 13 agglomerations with a generated load of 3,226,341 p.e. are subject to Article 5(2,3), whereas no agglomeration is compliant with the requirements of more stringent treatment. 20 agglomerations (1,091,240 p.e.) are not yet applicable to the requirements of Article 5 due to pending transitional periods of the designation / last review of SA and respective CSA.
Ireland (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) crit. a: N,P + Art.5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 94 94 88 48 56 51
[%] 100.0 100.0 93.6 51.1 59.6 54.3
Generated load (p.e.) 4,593,483 4,593,483 4,339,983 852,023 782,585 537,150
[%] 100.0 100.0 94.5 18.5 17.0 11.7
Table 53: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Ireland (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) crit. a: N,P + Art.5(2,3) Number of agglomerations [%] Generated load (p.e.) [%]
94 94 94 94
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4,593,483 4,593,483 4,593,483 4,593,483
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
102
Load collected in collecting system (p.e.) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) not applicable due to pending transitional period for SA/CSA designated after 2,000/12/31 94 94 48 48 13 0 0 100.0 100.0 51.1 51.1 13.8 0.0 0.0 4,593,483 4,593,483 852,023 852,023 3,226,341 0 0
[%]
100.0 100.0 18.5 18.5 70.2 0.0 0.0
20
21.3
1,091,240
23.8
Table 54: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

93 agglomerations with a total generated load of 980,717 p.e discharge into normal areas. All agglomerations comply with the requirements of Article 3. 24 (out of 74) agglomerations and 32.4% of the subjected load comply with the secondary treatment requirements of Article 4. 19 agglomerations are not subject to compliance as their size lies between 2,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. and they discharge into coastal water. Article 5 is not relevant for agglomerations discharging into normal areas.
Ireland (reference date 2007/12/31) Normal Areas Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 93 93 63 33 23 33
[%] 100.0 100.0 67.7 35.5 24.7 35.5
[%] 100.0 100.0 74.1 35.8 26.6 48.5
Table 55: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
103
Ireland (reference date 2007/12/31) Normal Areas
[%]
[%]
93 93 93 93
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
980,717 980,717 980,717 980,717 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) due to historical assessment - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
93 74 24 24
100.0 79.6 25.8 32.4
980,717 884,409 286,577 286,577
100.0 90.2 29.2 32.4
19 1 0 0
20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
96,308 18,000 0 0
9.8 1.8 0.0 0.0
0.0
Table 56: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Ireland discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

On 31 December 2007 Ireland reported 2 big cities/ big dischargers with a total generated load of 3,193,333 p.e.: Cork city with a generated load of 323.000 p.e and Dublin (Ringsend) with 2,870,333 p.e. Cork city discharges into the CSA Lee Estuary / Lough Mahon, Dublin (Ringsend) discharge into the SA Liffey Estuary and both agglomerations need more stringent treatment (nitrogen and phosphorus). Both big cities comply with the collection requirements of Article 3. Cork City is compliant with Article 4, while Dublin (Ringsend) does not comply with Article 4 as monitoring results do not comply with secondary treatment. Due to the fact that the respective SA/CSA were designated/reviewed only in 2001 and 2004 transitional periods for
104
the compliance with Article 5 are still pending and agglomerations were therefore not assessed as regards compliance with Article 5. Compared to Q2007, two big cities / big dischargers were not reported for the Sixth Implementation report as their size decreased significantly and were reported less than 150,000 p.e.: The size of Dundalk decreased from 179.535 p.e. to 90,000 p.e. and Killybegs decreased from 400,000 p.e. to 92,000 p.e. Two other agglomerations (Dunkineeley and Waterford City) were erroneously be reported as Big Cities in the last Report, while in fact they generate less than 150,000 p.e. of wastewater (Dunkineeley with a generated load of 1,000 p.e. and Waterford City with a generated load of 140,000 p.e.).
6.14 Italy
Italy submitted a first dataset in February 2010 and re-submitted a corrected dataset in June 2010. The reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2007. A main error in the data reported by Italy was found in the accounting imbalance among associated waste water flows. The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system. The components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%. Furthermore, the information on the treatment type, the related monitoring results as well as the type of receiving water and/or discharge points were not reported for some agglomerations. Agglomerations applying Article 5(4) were partly reported without incoming and discharged loads for Ntot and Ptot. Finally, for some CSA different designation criteria than those for the related SA were reported. For some SA and CSA the criterion for designation remained undefined. In Italy, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used. An agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.

Sensitive areas Italy applies Article 5(2,3) of the Directive and has designated 199 sensitive areas and 188 catchment of sensitive areas, with sensitivity partly to nitrogen and phosphorus, partly only nitrogen or phosphorus and partly to criterion b or criterion c. Some SA and CSA were reported with undefined criterion for designation.

For reference date 31 December 2007 Italy reported 3,246 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 81,849,811 p.e.. 97.8% of all agglomerations have a collecting system in place. 2,942 of these agglomerations (or 90.6% of the total generated load) have installations for secondary
105
treatment in place, while 2,584 installations (or 79.6% of the total generated load) have more stringent treatment installations in place. 90.0% of all agglomerations covering 83.6% of the total generated load is compliant with Article 3 of the Directive. 3,077 agglomerations (or 99.3 % of the entire generated load) of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. are subject to the waste water treatment requirements under Article 4 of the Directive. 97 agglomerations are not subject to compliance as their size lies between 2,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. and they discharge into coastal water. For 72 agglomerations the compliance criteria of Article 4 are not applicable due to the fact that no load enters the collecting systems. 1,964 agglomerations with a collected load of 43,863,210 p.e. are compliant with Article 4. 145 agglomerations with a generated load of 6,971,126 p.e. are subject to Article 5(2,3), whereas 95 agglomeration are compliant with the requirements of more stringent treatment. 80 agglomerations (4,492,337 p.e.) are not yet applicable to the requirements of Article 5 due to pending transitional periods of the designation / last review of SA and respective CSA. The results of the historical assessment are included in the figures of the summary tables below. The summary tables on normal areas, sensitive areas and Article 5(4) areas include all agglomerations, which discharged in the respective area according to data reported in Q2009. Agglomerations reported as discharging into a normal area in Q2009, but reported as discharging into a sensitive area in former reports, are presented in the summary tables for agglomerations discharging in normal areas under the category Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) due to historical assessment of SA/ CSA.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(4) and of Art. 5(1,2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 3,246 3,174 2,942 2,584 2,584 2,256
[%] 100.0 97.8 90.6 79.6 79.6 69.5
[%] 100.0 93.1 86.7 76.9 81.1 70.9
Table 57: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(4) and of Art. 5(1,2,3) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
Number of agglomerations 3,246 3,246 2,921 2,921
[%] 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0
[%] 100.0 100.0 83.6 83.6
106
Load collected in collecting systems (p.e.)
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because no load enters collecting system Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to pending transitional period of SA/CSA designated after 2001/12/31) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 (1,2,3) not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
3,246 3,077 1,964 1,964
100.0 94.8 60.5 63.8
76,217,513 75,712,502 43,863,210 43,863,210
100.0 99.3 57.6 57.9
72
2.2
346,936
0.5
97 145 95 95
3.0 4.5 2.9 65.5
505,011 6,971,126 4,597,083 4,597,083
0.7 9.1 6.0 65.9
80
2.5
4,492,337
5.9
327
10.1
25,279,224
33.2
Table 58: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
6.14.1 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, where Article 5(4) is applied
As concerns the minimum reduction rates required under Article 5(4), Italy is partly not compliant with Article 5(4) due to the fact that incoming and discharged loads for Ntot and Ptot were not reported, partly due to the fact that the transitional periods are still pending due to the designation date of the Article 5(4) areas. 96.9% of the total generated load was reported to be collected in collecting systems, which means that 95.9% of the agglomerations subject to compliance with Article 3 comply with the respective requirements. 68.7% of the total load of agglomerations discharging into areas designated under Article 5(4) are in compliance with Article 4.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(4) Total
Number of agglomerations 943
[%]
[%]
100.0
28,836,552
100.0
107
Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
913 867 787 689 631
96.8 91.9 83.5 73.0 67.0
27,954,508 27,287,624 23,723,749 25,818,496 22,475,403
96.9 94.6 82.3 89.5 77.9
Table 59: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into Article 5(4) areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(4) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable1
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 95.0 95.0 0.0
28,836,552 28,836,552 25,357,419 25,357,419 0 Load collected in collecting systems (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 87.9 87.9 0.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because no load enters collecting system Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to pending transitional period of SA/CSA designated after 2001/12/31)
943 913 691 691
100.0 96.8 73.3 75.7
27,954,508 27,954,508 19,204,509 19,204,509
100.0 100.0 68.7 68.7
30
3.2
101,590
0.4
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
108
Compliance criteria for Art. 5 (1,2,3) not applicable due to application of Art. 327 5(4)
34.7
25,279,224
90.4
Table 60: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into Article 5(4) areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
6.14.2 Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, where Article 5(2,3) is applied
748 agglomerations with a total generated load of 15,597,218 p.e discharge into sensitive areas designated under criterion N (22 agglomerations), criterion P (391 agglomerations), criterion N and P (205 agglomerations), criterion b (76 agglomerations), criterion c (45 agglomerations) and under not defined criterion (9 agglomerations). 745 agglomerations and 99.9% of the total generated load was reported to be collected in collecting systems, which means that all agglomerations comply with Article 3 of the Directive. Out of those 730 agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas being subject to Article 4, 609 agglomerations (83.6% of the collected load) comply with the requirements of secondary treatment. 8 agglomerations are not subject to compliance as their size lies between 2,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. and they discharge into coastal water. For 10 agglomerations the compliance criteria of Article 4 are not applicable due to the fact that no load enters the collecting systems. 145 agglomerations are subject to Article 5, whereas 95 agglomerations (65.9% of the subjected load) meet the requirements for more stringent treatment. For 80 agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas the compliance criteria for Article 5 are not yet applicable due to the pending transitional period of the designation / last review of the SA.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 748 738 722 675 637 591
[%] 100.0 98.7 96.5 90.2 85.2 79.0
[%] 100.0 91.1 88.4 85.7 85.5 80.8
Table 61: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3)
[%]
[%]
109
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable1
748 748 745 745 0
100.0 100.0 99.6 99.6 0.0
15,597,218 15,597,218 15,582,473 15,582,473 0 Load collected in collecting systems (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 0.0 [%] 100.0 99.7 83.3 83.6
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because no load enters collecting system Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to pending transitional period of SA/CSA designated after 2001/12/31) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
748 730 609 609
100.0 97.6 81.4 83.4
14,203,035 14,163,301 11,834,360 11,834,360
10
1.3
36,735
0.3
8 145 95 95
1.1 19.4 12.7 65.5
39,734 6,971,126 4,597,083 4,597,083
0.3 49.1 32.4 65.9
80
10.7
4,492,337
31.6
0.0
0.0
Table 62: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) - criterion a (N and P)
[%]
[%]
Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place
205 204 203
100.0 99.5 99.0
3,057,852 2,970,234 2,930,568
100.0 97.1 95.8
110
172 197 170
83.9 96.1 82.9
2,759,386 2,905,318 2,740,779
90.2 95.0 89.6
Table 63: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion N and P) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) - criterion a (N and P) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable1
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
Load collected in [%] collecting systems (p.e.) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because no load enters collecting system Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to pending transitional period of SA/CSA designated after 2001/12/31) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4) 205 198 156 156 100.0 96.6 76.1 78.8 2,970,234 2,946,675 1,943,554 1,943,554 100.0 99.2 65.4 66.0
0.5
2,100
0.1
6 41 20 20
2.9 20.0 9.8 48.8
23,559 1,615,193 573,429 573,429
0.8 54.4 19.3 35.5
15
7.3
681,926
23.0
0.0
0.0
Table 64: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion N and P) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007
111
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) - criterion a (N)
[%]
[%]
22 22 22 22 19 18
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 86.4 81.8
1,136,758 886,336 886,336 886,336 872,662 815,334
100.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 76.8 71.7
Table 65: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion N) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) - criterion a (N) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable1
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
1,136,758 1,136,758 1,136,758 1,136,758 0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
Load collected in [%] collecting systems (p.e.)
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because no load enters collecting system Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance
22 22 22 22
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
886,336 886,336 886,336 886,336
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.0
0.0
0 12
0.0 54.5
0 817,704
0.0 92.3
112
with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to pending transitional period of SA/CSA designated after 2001/12/31) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4) 7 7 31.8 58.3 633,271 633,271 71.4 77.4
9.1
43,630
4.9
0.0
0.0
Table 66: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion N) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) - criterion a (P)
[%]
[%]
391 385 372 378 306 304
100.0 98.5 95.1 96.7 78.3 77.7
10,046,886 9,138,625 8,804,470 8,711,454 8,469,007 8,174,107
100.0 91.0 87.6 86.7 84.3 81.4
Table 67: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion P) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) - criterion a (P) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable1
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 99.2 99.2 0.0
10,046,886 10,046,886 10,032,141 10,032,141 0
100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 0.0
113
391 383 338 338
100.0 98.0 86.4 88.3
9,138,625 9,122,450 8,250,933 8,250,933
100.0 99.8 90.3 90.4
1.5
25,325
0.3
2 86 64 64
0.5 22.0 16.4 74.4
16,175 4,388,998 3,311,145 3,311,145
0.2 48.0 36.2 75.4
63
16.1
3,766,782
41.2
0.0
0.0
Table 68: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion P) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) - criterion b
[%]
[%]
76 76 76 63 69 62
100.0 100.0 100.0 82.9 90.8 81.6
553,711 465,060 432,584 372,771 380,146 362,718
100.0 84.0 78.1 67.3 68.7 65.5
Table 69: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion b) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) - criterion b
[%]
[%]
114
76 76 76 76 0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
553,711 553,711 553,711 553,711 0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
76 76 61 61
100.0 100.0 80.3 80.3
465,060 465,060 337,188 337,188
100.0 100.0 72.5 72.5
0.0
0.0
0 6 4 4
0.0 7.9 5.3 0.0
0 149,231 79,238 79,238
0.0 32.1 17.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Table 70: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion b) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) - criterion c
[%]
[%]
Total Collecting system in place
45 42
100.0 93.3
744,434 697,956
100.0 93.8
115
Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
40 32 39 29
88.9 71.1 86.7 64.4
687,287 602,548 677,248 477,431
92.3 80.9 91.0 64.1
Table 71: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion c) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(1,2,3) - criterion c Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable1
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
744,434 744,434 744,434 744,434 0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because no load enters collecting system Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to pending transitional period of SA/CSA designated after 2001/12/31)
45 42 24 24
100.0 93.3 53.3 57.1
697,956 697,956 387,290 387,290
100.0 100.0 55.5 55.5
6.7
9,310
1.3
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
116
Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
0.0
0.0
Table 72: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into sensitive areas (criterion c) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

1,555 agglomerations with a total generated load of 37,416,041 p.e. discharge into normal areas. 38.2% of the subjected load is in compliance with Article 4 of the Directive. Article 5 is of no relevance for agglomerations discharging into normal areas.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Normal Areas
[%]
[%]
1,555 1,523 1,353 1,122 1,258 1,034
100.0 97.9 87.0 72.2 80.9 66.5
37,416,041 34,059,969 29,897,506 25,847,661 27,199,993 22,925,471
100.0 91.0 79.9 69.1 72.7 61.3
Table 73: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into normal areasas reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Italy (reference date 31/12/2007) Normal areas Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable1
Number of agglomerations 1,555 1,555 1,280 1,280 0
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 82.3 82.3 0.0
37,416,041 37,416,041 27,527,366 27,527,366 0
100.0 100.0 73.6 73.6 0.0
117
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable because no load enters collecting system Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2
1,555 1,434 664 664
100.0 92.2 42.7 46.3
34,059,969 33,594,693 12,824,342 12,824,342
100.0 98.6 37.7 38.2
32
2.1
208,611
0.6
89
5.7
465,277
1.4
Table 74: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Italy discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

Italy documented 86 big cities / big dischargers by 31 December 2007 with a total generated load of 35,466,062 p.e.. A considerable part of the total generated load of Consortile Acireale (13%), Salerno (10%), Nocera Inferiore (19%) and Pero (17%) are not collected in collection system and not treated with individual appropriate systems. A share between 20 and 70% of the total generated load is treated with individual appropriate systems for Venezia-Mirese (20%), Consortile Catania (50%), Consortile Misterbianco (63%) and Consortile Acireale (70%). No treatment receives 76% of the total generated load of Nocera Inferiore. The following big cities/big dischargers with a generated load of 7,733,427 p.e. are not compliant with the requirements of Article 3: Santa Maria del Cedro,Olona Nord, Gioia Tauro, Truccazzano, Cosenza, Robecco sul Naviglio, Nola, Seveso Sud, Nocera Inferiore, Salerno, Torre del Greco, Afragola, Caserta, Napoli Nord, Aversa, Catania Consortile, Monza, Olona Sud and Napoli. 36 big cities/big dischargers with a generated load of 17,041,017 p.e. are not compliant with the requirements of secondary treatment, out of which the biggest big cities with more than 500,000 p.e are: Firenze, Aversa, Catania Consortile, Cagliari, Bologna, Monza, Olona, Napoli, Bari, Bergamo, Isola, Valli, Palermo and Roma. Agglomerations Trieste and Cagliari with a total generated load of 840,223 p.e are not compliant with the more stringent treatment requirements according to Article 5. Compared to the list of big cities reported in the 5th Implementation Report the situation has changed as follows: ASI CA - Macchiareddu (CASIC), Chioggia, Castelfranco di Sotto, Lucca, Fucecchio and Iesolo are not anymore in the list of big cities as their generated load were reported to be considerably under 150,000,000 p.e: (ASI CA Macchiareddu change from 287,286 p.e. to 39,724 p.e.; Chioggia from 160,000 p.e. to 87,038 p.e.; Castelfranco di Sotto from 441,398 p.e. to 95,090 p.e; Lucca from 158,934 p.e. to 108,597 p.e.; Fucecchio from 512,089 p.e. to 113,700 p.e and Iesolo from 180,000 p.e. to 118,666 p.e.).
118
6.15 Latvia
Latvia provided one dataset within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation ReportThe reference date for submitted data is 31 December 2007. No major errors and inconsistencies in the data reported by Latvia were found. In Latvia, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. In Latvia the interim target dates to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive are 31 December 2008 for agglomerations with more than 100,000 p.e. and 31 December 2011 for agglomerations between 10,000 p.e. and 100,000 p.e.. The final deadline of the transitional period is 31 December 2015. As compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Directive was not required by 31 December 2007 for any agglomeration, no compliance check was elaborated. The present report solely describes the present status of waste water treatment for all agglomerations with a size of 2,000 p.e. or more.

Sensitive areas Since 22 January 2002 Latvia applies Article 5(8) + 5(2,3) of the Directive and therefore does not have to designate sensitive areas. The parameters subject to more stringent treatment are nitrogen and phosphorus. Normal areas Since Latvia applies Article 5(8) of the Directive, normal areas do not exist.
6.15.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) - areas

For reference date 31 December 2007 Latvia reported 84 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 1,845,192 p.e.. All agglomerations (for 79.7% of the generated load) have a collecting system in place. The remaining generated load is not collected in a collecting system and not addressed through IAS. Secondary treatment installations are in place for 83 agglomerations and 79.1% of the generated load. Out of these, monitoring results comply for 73 agglomerations and 76.7% of the generated load. For 11 agglomerations (and 12.1% of the generated load) more stringent treatment is in place. 18 agglomerations and 23.3% of the total generated load were reported with complying monitoring results for more stringent treatment.
Latvia (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(2,3,8) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Number of agglomerations 84 84 83
[%] 100 100.0 98.8
Generated load (p.e.) [%] 1,845,192 1,471,257 1,459,513 100 79.7 79.1
119
73 11 18
86.9 13.1 21.4
1,415,577 222,508 429,692
76.7 12.1 23.3
Table 75: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Latvia as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

Latvia documented 2 big cities/ big dischargers with a generated load of 912,018 p.e. by 31 December 2007. Daugavpils (153,018 p.e.) and Riga (759,000 p.e.) are both treated by secondary treatment for a major part of their generated load (79% of the generated load for Daugavpils and 87% of the generated load for Riga). Daugavpils has more stringent treatment in place for 79% of its generated load, while Riga has no stringet treatment installations in place. Daugavpils provides compliant monitoring results for Ntot and failing monitoring results for Ptot. Riga was reported with failing monitoring results for Ntot and Ptot.
6.16 Lithuania
Lithuania provided one dataset within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation ReportThe reference date for submitted data was reported with 30 December 2007. As this date would be one day before the deadline for all agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e to be compliant with Article 4 and 5, this was re-checked with the reporters in LT, who confirmed that the correct reference date of data is 31 December 2007. No major errors and inconsistencies in the data reported by Lithuania were found. In Lithuania, one agglomeration is served by one urban waste water treatment plant which means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : 1] is used. In the Accession Treaty signed by Lithuania, compliance with articles 4 and 5(2) in agglomerations > 10,000 p.e. must be reached by the end of 2007; however, compliance with article 3 for those agglomerations was agreed to be reached only by the end of 2009. Such sequence of deadlines (collection after treatment) is not in line with the approach in other EU-12 Member States (compliance in treatment agreed to be reached after compliance in collection). The final deadline of the transitional period is 31 December 2009.

Sensitive areas Since 1 January 2005 Lithuania applies Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) of the Directive and therefore does not have to designate sensitive areas. The criteria subject to more stringent treatment are nitrogen and phosphorus. Normal areas Since Lithuania applies Article 5(8) of the Directive, normal areas do not exist.
120
6.16.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) - areas

For reference date 31.12.2007 Lithuania reported 70 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 2,686,500 p.e. 93.6% of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. were reported to be collected in a collecting system with the remaining 6.4% addressed through IAS. Installations and monitoring results complying with secondary treatment are in place for around 82% of the generated load and more stringent treatment installations are in place for 72.8% of the total generated load of all agglomerations with 2,000 p.e.. Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment for 58.1% of the total generated load. The final deadline for compliance with Article 3 will be 31 December 2009. Therefore all agglomerations are not yet subject to compliance with Article 3. From 31 agglomerations subject to Article 4, 30 agglomerations with 87.3% of the subjected load are compliant with the requirements of secondary treatment. Out of 31 agglomerations subject to Article 5, 17 agglomerations and 61.2% of the subjected load are compliant with the requirements of Article 5.
Lithuania (reference date 2007/31/12) Application of Art. 5(2,3) and Art. 5(8): N, P Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 70 70 65 66 33 29
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 92.9 94.3 47.1 41.4
2,686,500 2,515,600 2,195,743 2,201,742 1,956,117 1,561,388
100.0 93.6 81.7 82.0 72.8 58.1
Table 76: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Lithuania as reported for reference date 30 December 2007.
Lithuania (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(2,3) and Art. 5(8): N, P Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable during transitional period
[%] 100.0 0.0 0 0 100.0
Generated load (p.e.) 2,686,500 0 0 0 2,686,500 Load collected in collecting systems (p.e.)
[%] 100.0 0.0 0 0 100.0
[%]
121
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable during transitional period Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(8) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5)
70 31 30 30 39 31 17 17
100.0 44.3 42.9 96.8 55.7 44.3 24.3 54.8
2,515,600 2,383,285 2,081,083 2,081,083 132,315 2,383,285 1,458,268 1,458,268
100.0 94.7 82.7 87.3 5.3 94.7 58.0 61.2
Table 77: Present status of Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Lithuania as reported for reference date 30 December 2007.
6.16.4 Waste water treatment in big cities

Lithuania documented 4 big cities/ big dischargers with a total load of 1,575,000 p.e. by 31 December 2007: Panevezys with 270,000 p.e., Klaipeda with 276,000 p.e, Kaunas with 309,000 p.e and Vilnius with 720,000 p.e. The status and compliance of waste water treatment for those big cities / big dischargers was the following: More than 97% of the generated load of Kaunas, Klaipeda and Panevezys are collected in collecting systems. For Vilnius 94.8% of the total generated load is collected in collecting systems, while 5% are treated via IAS. Kaunas has only primary treatment in place. Kaunas is therefore not compliant with Article 4 (and Article 5), while all other 3 big cities / big dischargers are compliant with the requirements of secondary treatment. Panevezys has more stringent treatment with N- and P-removal, but failing monitoring results for Ntot and is therefore not compliant with Article 5. Klaipeda has more stringent treatment with N- and P-removal and complying monitoring results (for 99.2% of the generated load) and was therefore assessed as in compliance with Article 5. Vilnius has more stringent treatment with N- and P-removal and complying monitoring results (for 94.8% of the generated load) and was therefore assessed as in compliance with Article 5. Compared to the 5th Implementation Report agglomeration Panevezys was reported as big city / big discharger for the first time.
6.17 Luxembourg
Luxembourg provided one dataset within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report reference date of information is 28 December 2008. No major errors and inconsistencies in the data reported by Luxembourg were found.
122
In Luxembourg, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used.

Sensitive Areas Luxembourg applies Article 5(8) and Article 5(2,3) and identified all water bodies as sensitive areas for reason of eutrophication (nitrogen and phosphorus). Normal areas As Luxembourg applies Article 5(8) of the Directive, normal areas do not exist.
6.17.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) areas

For reference date 28 December 2008 Luxembourg reported 46 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 653,670 p.e. 99% of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. were reported to be collected in a collecting system with the remaining 1% addressed through IAS. All agglomerations are in compliance with Article 3. All agglomerations 2,000 p.e. (and 647,133 p.e) are subject to compliance with Article 4, of which 55.9% of the subjected load is in full compliance with secondary treatment requirements. 12 agglomerations (or 77.8% of the generated load) are subject to compliance with Article 5(8) and Article 5(2,3), out of these 6 agglomerations with a generated load of 173,043 p.e. (covering 34.4% of the subjected load) are compliant with more stringent treatment requirements.
Luxembourg (situation as of 2008/12/28) Application of Article 5(8) and 5(2,3): N, P Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 46 46 46 41 26 21 Generated load (p.e.) 653,670 647,133 647,133 542,713 528,849 373,337
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 89.1 56.5 45.7
[%] 100.0 99.0 99.0 83.0 80.9 57.1
Table 78: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Luxembourg reported for reference date 28 December 2008.
Luxemburg (situation as of 2008/12/28) Application of Article 5(8) and 5(2,3): N, P
[%]
Total
46
100.0
653,670
100.0
123
46 46 46
100.0 100.0 100.0
653,670 653,670 653,670 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Agglomerations subject to compliance with Article 5(8) + Article 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5)
46 46 39 39
100.0 100.0 84.8 84.8
647,133 647,133 361,990 361,990
100.0 100.0 55.9 55.9
12
26.1
503,207
77.8
6 6
13.0 50.0
173,043 173,043
26.7 34.4
Table 79: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Luxembourg reported for reference date 28 December 2008.

The only big city/ big discharger is Luxembourg (255,054 p.e.), which is served by five urban waste water treatment plants (Beggen, Bonnevoie, Hesperange, Uebersyren and Mersch) equipped with phosphorus-removal (Beggen, Bonnevoie and Mersch), nitrogenand phosphorus-removal (Uebersyren) and secondary treatment (Hesperange). Secondary treatment installations are in place for 99% of the generated load, more stringent treatment installations are in place for 87% of the generated load. Monitoring results fail for all agglomerations, except Uebersyren (15% of the collected load of agglomeration Luxembourg).
6.18 Malta
Malta provided one dataset within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report.The reference date is 31 December 2008. The main inconsistencies in the dataset reported by Malta were found in the imbalance among associated waste water flows for some agglomerations. The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system. The components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%.
124
In Malta, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used. An agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements. There were several interim target dates for Malta to comply with Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive: the accession date, 2004, 2005, and 2006. The final deadline for implementation was 31 March 2007.

Sensitive areas Malta applies Art. 5(1) and 5(2,3) of the Directive and has designated eight sensitive areas due to criterion a (N and P). From the six agglomerations larger than 2,000 p.e., only Malta North discharges into a sensitive area.

For reference date 31 December 2008 Malta reported 6 agglomerations beyond 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 584,000 p.e. Collecting systems are in place for the 100% of the generated load of Malta. Secondary and more stringent treatment installations are in place for 4 agglomerations (or 24.1% of the generated load). Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment specifications for 24.1%, with more stringent treatment requirements for only 16,6% of the total generated load. All agglomerations are compliant with the requirements of Article 3. From 4 agglomerations, which are subject to Article 4, 2 with a load of 73,800 p.e. (12.9% of the subjected load) are compliant with the requirements of secondary treatment. For 2 agglomerations compliance criteria of Article 4 are not relevant as their size is between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e and they are discharging into coastal waters. Only one agglomeration, Malta North, discharges into a sensitive area (Qammieh Point till Ras ir-Raheb) and is therefore subject to achieving compliance with more stringent treatment requirements of Article 5(2,3). Malta North is served by one WWTP, the Cumnija Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant with other more stringent treatment (not specified), and complying monitoring results for BOD5, COD and Ptot, but failing monitoring results for Ntot. Therefore Malta North is assessed as non compliant with Article 5.
Malta (reference date 2008/12/31) applying Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment Number of agglomerations 6 6 4 4 Generated load (p.e.) 584,000 584,000 140,800 140,800
[%] 100.0 100.0 66.7 66.7
[%] 100.0 100.0 24.1 24.1
125
More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
4 3
66.7 50.0
140,800 96,800
24.1 16.6
Table 80: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
Malta (reference date 2008/12/31) applying Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable Number of agglomerations 6 6 6 6 0 Generated load (p.e.) 584,000 584,000 584,000 584,000 0 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4) 6 4 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 100.0 66.7 33.3 50.0 33.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 584,000 573,800 73,800 73,800 10,200 44,000 0 0 0
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
[%]
100.0 98.3 12.6 12.9 1.7 7.5 0.0 0.0 0
Table 81: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta reported for reference date 31 December 2008.

Only one agglomeration, Malta North, discharges into a sensitive area (Qammieh Point till Ras ir-Raheb). The agglomeration is compliant with the requirements of Article 3 and 4. Malta North is served by one WWTP, the Cumnija Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant with other more stringent treatment (not specified), and complying monitoring results for BOD5, COD and Ptot, but failing monitoring results for Ntot. Therefore Malta North is assessed as non compliant with Article 5.
Malta (reference date 2008/12/31) applying Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Number of agglomerations Generated load (p.e.)
[%]
[%]
126
1 1 1 1 1 0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
Table 82: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta discharging into sensitive areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
Malta (reference date 2008/12/31) applying Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Number of agglomerations 1 1 1 1 [%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Generated load (p.e.) 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 0 0 [%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Table 83: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta discharging into sensitive areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008.

5 agglomerations discharge into normal areas. All agglomerations comply with the requirements of Article 3. From the 3 agglomerations subject to compliance with Article 4, only 1 with 5.6% of the subjected load is compliant with the requirements for secondary treatment. For 2 agglomerations compliance criteria of Article 4 are not relevant as their size is between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e and they are discharging into coastal waters.
127
Malta (reference date 2008/12/31) Normal Areas Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
[%] 100.0 100.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
[%] 100.0 100.0 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9
Table 84: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
Malta (reference date 2008/12/31) Normal Areas Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Generated load (p.e.) 540,000 540,000 540,000 540,000 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
[%] 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
5 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
100.0 60.0 20.0 33.3 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
540,000 529,800 29,800 29,800 10,200 0 0 0 0
100.0 98.1 5.5 5.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 85: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Malta discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
128

Malta documented 1 big cities/ big dischargers by 31 December 2008: Malta South with 350.000 p.e.: Malta South (350,000 p.e) is served by one WWTP, Ta' Barkat Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant and discharges into a normal area. The WWTP is reported as inactive, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment installations were not reported, therefore the total generated load of Malta South is untreated and assessed as non compliant with Article 4.
6.19 The Netherlands

The Netherlands provided information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report. The reference date of information is 31 December 2007. NL submitted their dataset in such a quality that no further corrections and / or modifications were required. In the Netherlands, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. In this case an agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.

Sensitive areas Since 17 June 1993 the Netherlands apply Article 5(8) of the Directive and therefore, do not have to identify sensitive areas. As the Netherlands also apply Article 5(4) of the Directive since 12 June 1994, the Dutch authorities must show that the minimum percentage of reduction in the overall load entering all the country's waste water treatment plants is at least 75% for total phosphorus and at least 75% for total nitrogen. Normal areas As the Netherlands apply Article 5(8) of the Directive, normal areas do not exist.
6.19.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) areas

For reference date 31 December 2007 the Netherlands reported 334 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 16,100,846 p.e. 100% of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. was reported to be collected in a collecting system and treated in UWWTPs with secondary treatment. This means that for reference date 31 December 2007 100% of the total generated load were in full compliance with Article 3. All agglomerations and 100% of the generated load subject to secondary treatment were in full compliance with Article 4 of the Directive. 5 agglomerations are not subject to the treatment requirements of Article 4 as their size is between 2,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. and they are discharging into coastal water. As concerns compliance with Article 5(4) it was investigated, whether the minimum reduction rates of 75% were fulfilled for Ntot and Ptot. In the year 2007 the 75% reduction
129
requirement was achieved for phosphorus (82.3%) and for nitrogen (79.7%). Compared to the last Implementation Report (5th Implementation Report), in which the 75% reduction requirement was not met for nitrogen (only 74.4%), the reduction rate has considerably improved by 5.3%.
The Netherlands (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(8) + 5(4) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 334 334 334 334 328 328
[%] 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.2 98.2
[%] 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.3
Table 86: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in the Netherlands reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
The Netherlands (reference date 31/12/2007) Application of Art. 5(8) + 5(4) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
[%] 100 100.0 100.0 100.0
Generated load (p.e.) 16,100,846 16,100,846 16,100,846 16,100,846 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
[%] 100 100.0 100.0 100.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
334 329 329 329
100 98.5 98.5 100
16,100,846 16,073,446 16,073,446 16,073,446
100 99.8 99.8 100
1.5
27,400
0.2
334
100
16,100,846
100
Table 87: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in the Netherlands reported for reference date 31 December 2007. Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).
130

The Netherlands documented 24 big cities/ big dischargers with a total generated load of 6,674,510 p.e. by 31 December 2007. The status of waste water treatment for those big cities/ big dischargers was the following: All 24 big cities/ big dischargers have secondary treatment and more stringent treatment installations in place: Amsterdam, Den Hoorn, Eindhoven, Bergen Op Zoom, Arnhem, 'S-Gravenhage, Utrecht, Helmond, 'S Hertogenbosch, Apeldoorn, Venlo, Breda, Groningen, Veghel, Nijmegen, Tilburg, Oss, Heerlen, Amersfoort, Almere, Susteren, Enschede, Wervershoof and Rotterdam. Compared to the situation presented in the 5th Implementation report (reference date 31 December 2005), 3 big cities/ big dischargers were not considered as big cities/ big dischargers anymore for the 6th Implementation Report, as their size dropped below the threshold value of 150,000 p.e. (Hengelo, Beverwijk and Harderwijk). On the other hand, 4 big cities/ big dischargers were reported for the first time in the 6th Implementation Report (Wervershoof, Susteren, Almere and Apeldoorn).
6.20 Poland
Poland provided information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Reportand submitted a corrected dataset by 31 May 2010. The reference date of information is 31 December 2008. The main inconsistencies in the dataset reported by Poland were found in the imbalance among associated waste water flows for some agglomerations. The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system. The components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%. In Poland one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. The interim target dates for compliance with Articles 3, 4, 5(2) and 7 of the Directive are: 31/12/2005 for 674 agglomerations representing 69% of the generated load, 31/12/2010 for 1,069 agglomerations representing 86% of the generated load, 31/12/2013 for 1165 agglomerations representing 91% of the generated load. The final deadline is 31/12/2015. The Accession Treaty stipulates that Poland has to apply Article 5(2) of the Directive and not Article 5(4) as currently implemented by Poland. During a meeting with Poland, the European Commission stressed that, if Poland is already compliant with Article 5(4), the Commission would accept that as an alternative to compliance with the transitional provisions. In such case information indicating full compliance with Article 5(4) is required. However from the statements made by the PL authorities (congruent with the assessment of compliance as described below) it was clear that PL is not in position to prove compliance with Article 5(4) now but rather intends to do so by 2015.

Sensitive areas
131
Since 1 May 2004 Poland applies Article 5(8) and Article 5(4) of the Directive for the entire territory. Therefore the minimum reduction of the overall load entering all UWWTPs has to be at least 75% for total N and 75% for total P and no sensitive areas need to be identified. Normal areas As Poland applies Article 5(8) and Article 5(4) of the Directive, normal areas do not exist. The minimum reduction of the overall load entering all UWWTPs has to be at least 75% for total N and 75% for total P.
6.20.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) and Article 5(4) areas
For reference date 31 December 2008 Poland reported 1,231 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 43,887,529 p.e.. 1,230 agglomerations (and 84.8 % of the generated load) have a collecting system in place. Secondary treatment installations are in place for 81% and more stringent treatment for 72.9% of the generated load. Monitoring requirements comply with 76.2% of the generated load treated by secondary treatment and with 67.3% generated load treated by more stringent treatment. The relevant compliance criteria by 31 December 2008 are the following: 674 agglomerations representing 69% of the generated load need to be compliant as regards Articles 3, 4, 5(2) and 7 of the Directive. Therefore the legal compliance check, only refers to the 674 agglomerations representing 69% of the generated load. Out of these 674 agglomerations representing 69% of the generated load, 597 agglomerations with a generated load of 20,079,892 p.e. (66.3% of load subject to Article 3) are compliant with Article 3. 511 (14,948,622 p.e) out of 674 agglomerations representing 58.2% of the subjected load are compliant with the requirements of secondary treatment as regards Article 4. 1 agglomeration, Drohiczyn, is not subject to Article 4 as its size is between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e. and discharges into coastal water. In the reference year 2008 total N was reduced by 56.48% and total P by 48.48%, which means that Poland did not comply with Article 5(4) of the Directive.
Poland (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of Art. 5(4,8) on the entire area Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 1,231 1,230 1,195 1,066 473 432
[%] 100.0 99.9 97.1 86.6 38.4 35.1
[%] 100.0 84.8 81.0 76.2 72.9 67.3
132
Table 88: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Poland reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
Poland (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of Art. 5(4,8) on the entire area Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable during transitional period
Number of agglomerations 1,231 674 597 597 557
[%] 100.0 54.8 48.5 88.6 45.2
Generated load (p.e.) 43,887,529 30,282,395 20,079,892 20,079,892 13,605,134 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
[%] 100.0 69.0 45.8 66.3 31.0 [%] 100.0 69.0 40.2 58.2 0.0 31.0 100.0
Total: Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable during transitional period Compliance criteria for Art. 5(2,3) not applicable due to application of Art. 5(4)
1231 674 511 511 1 556 1231
100.0 54.8 41.5 75.8 0.1 45.2 100.0
37,219,647 25,681,556 14,948,622 14,948,622 1,296 11,536,795 37,219,647
Table 89: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Poland reported for reference date 31 December 2008.

Poland documented 58 big cities/ big dischargers with a total generated load of 21,542,014 p.e. by 31 December 2008. The status of waste water treatment for those big cities/ big dischargers was the following: 91,4% of the generated load was reported to be collected in collecting systems, 84,4% of the generated load was reported to have secondary treatment installations in place, while 83,4% of the generated load was reported to have more stringent treatment installations in place. A considerable share of the generated load of the big cities Pruszkw (53.70%) and Biaystok (43.30%) are not collected and not treated through IAS.
6.21 Portugal
Portugal provided information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report.The reference date of information is 31 December 2007.
133
The main errors and inconsistencies in data reported by Portugal were found in discrepancies between some spatial information reported and the situation evident from submitted GIS files. Furthermore for some agglomerations data on the treatment type and relating monitoring results were missing. In Portugal one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. In this case an agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.

Sensitive areas Portugal applies Article 5(2,3). In 1997 Portugal designated 41 sensitive areas, which were reviewed in the year 2004 to 25 sensitive areas. Many of these areas are designated for criterion a (eutrophication reasons and therefore with a need for N and/or P removal) or for criterion c (compliance with another EU Directive, mostly with the need for disinfection). For reference year 2007 Portugal reported 25 sensitive areas as well as their related catchments. Less sensitive areas For reference date 31 December 2007 Portugal reported nine less sensitive areas.

For reference date 31 December 2005 Portugal reported 408 agglomerations 2,000 p.e.with a generated load of 11,080,420 p.e.. 97.6% of the generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. are collected in collecting system, with the remaining fraction being not collected in collecting system and not addressed through individual and appropriate systems. 88.2% of the total generated load is in full compliance with Article 3 of the Directive (9,777,920 p.e.). For 73% of the generated load secondary treatment installations are in place, for 41% of the total load the monitoring results comply with the secondary treatment installations. For 27.1% of the generated load more stringent treatment installations are in place, for 15.8% of the total load the monitoring results comply with the secondary treatment installations. From those agglomerations, which are due to compliance with Article 4 (99.9% of the entire generated load), 36.1% fully comply with the requirements of the Directive. For one agglomeration Article 4 is not applicable as its size is between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e and as it discharges into coastal water. Portugal has reviewed its sensitive areas on 22 June 2004, resulting in 25 sensitive areas and their respective catchment areas of sensitive areas designated under criterion a and/ or criterion c. For 25 agglomerations the compliance criteria for Article 5 are not yet applicable due to pending transitional periods of the designation / last review of SA and CSA after 31 December 2,000. The results of the historical assessment are included in the figures of the summary tables below. The summary tables on normal areas and sensitive areas include all agglomerations, which discharged in the respective area according to data reported in Q2009. Agglomerations reported as discharging into a normal area in Q2009, but reported as discharging into a sensitive area in former reports, are presented in the summary tables
134
for agglomerations discharging in normal areas under the category Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) due to historical assessment of SA/ CSA.
Portugal (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5 (1,2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 94.9 45.1 20.1 11.0
100.0 97.6 73.0 41.0 27.1 15.8
Table 90: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal as reported for reference date 31 December 2007 .
Portugal (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5 (1,2,3), criterion a: P or N,P, criterion c
[%]
[%]
408 408 391 391 0
100.0 100.0 95.8 95.8 0.0
11,080,420 11,080,420 9,777,920 9,777,920 0 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 88.2 88.2 0.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.)
408 407 176 176 1 19 4
100.0 99.8 43.1 43.1 0.2 4.7 1.0
10,812,286 10,805,586 3,903,720 3,903,720 6,700 774,820 118,100
100.0 99.9 36.1 36.1 0.1 7.2 1.1
135
- of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5(1,2,3) not applicable due to pending transitional period for SA/CSA designated after 2000/12/31
4 25
21.1 6.1
118,100 2,708,520
15.2 25.1
Table 91: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

122 agglomerations with a generated load of 2,785,100 p.e discharge into sensitive areas. 115 (82.5% of total generated load) are compliant with Article 3. Only 38 agglomerations with 22.6% of the subjected load are compliant with the secondary treatment requirements of Article 4. For 22 agglomerations the compliance criteria with Article 5 is not yet applicable as the transitional periods for the designation / last review of SA and CSA is pending. The GIS check revealed that 3 agglomerations (Figueira da Foz, Vila Franca de Xira and Lisboa), which were reported to discharge into normal areas, actually discharge into sensitive areas. All 3 agglomerations are compliant with the requirements of Article 3. Only 1 agglomeration (covering 4% of the subjected load) is compliant with Article 4. All 3 agglomerations are not yet due to compliance with Article 5 as the transitional periods for the designation / last review of SA and CSA is pending.
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 2,785,100 2,689,136 2,342,146 808,320 1,471,640 419,620
[%]
100.0 100.0 96.7 34.4 26.2 11.5
100.0 96.6 84.1 29.0 52.8 15.1
Table 92: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Portugal (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5 (1,2,3), criterion a: P or N,P, criterion c Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3)
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 94.3 94.3
100.0 100.0 82.5 82.5
136
Load collected in collecting system (p.e.) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5(1,2,3) not applicable due to pending transitional period for SA/CSA designated after 2000/12/31 122 122 38 38 13 4 4 22 100.0 100.0 31.1 31.1 0.0 3.3 0.0 18.0 2,689,136 2,689,136 606,800 606,800 521,320 118,100 118,100 1,552,420
[%]
100.0 100.0 22.6 22.6 0.0 4.4 0.0 57.7
Table 93: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 1,156,100 1,156,100 452,130 438,000 438,000 438,000
[%]
100.0 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
100.0 41.5 16.2 15.7 15.7 15.7
Table 94: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into sensitive areas according to GIS Check (while reported as discharging into normal area) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Portugal (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5 (1,2,3), criterion a: P or N,P, criterion c Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable1
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
137
Load collected in collecting [%] system (p.e.) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5(1,2,3) not applicable due to pending transitional period for SA/CSA designated after 2000/12/31 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 100.0 100.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1,156,100 1,156,100 46,000 46,000 0 0 0 0 1,156,100 100.0 100.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Table 95: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into sensitive areas discharging into sensitive areas according to GIS-Check (while reported as discharging into normal area) as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
6.21.5 Agglomerations discharging into less sensitive areas

5 agglomerations with a total generated load of 971,700 discharge into less sensitive areas. 4 agglomerations are compliant with Article 3. Only one agglomeration has secondary and more stringent treatment in place, but without complying monitoring results. Therefore none of the 5 agglomerations is assessed as in compliance with Article 4.
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 971,700 965,190 13,000 0 13,000 0
[%]
100.0 100.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0
100.0 99.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0
Table 96: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into less sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Portugal (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5 (1,2,3), criterion a: P or N,P, criterion c
[%]
[%]
138
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable
5 5 4 4 0
100.0 100.0 80.0 80.0 0.0
971,700 971,700 950,700 950,700 0 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
100.0 100.0 97.8 97.8 0.0
[%]
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5(1,2,3) not applicable due to LSA
5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
965,190 965,190 0 0 0 0 0 0 965,190
100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Table 97: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into less sensitive areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

278 agglomerations with a total generated load of 6,167,520 p.e discharge into normal areas. 97.3% of the load is compliant with Article 3. From the 277 agglomerations subject to Article 4 (one agglomeration is between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e discharging into coastal waters and therefore exempt from Article 4), 137 agglomerations covering 54.2% of the subjected load is compliant with the requirements of secondary treatment.
Portugal (reference date 2007/12/31) Normal Areas Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place
Number of agglomerations 278 278 265
[%]
Generated load (p.e.) 6,167,520 6,001,860 5,282,910
[%]
100.0 100.0 95.3
100.0 97.3 85.7
139
140 47 29
50.4 16.9 10.4
3,298,870 1,076,200 895,500
53.5 17.4 14.5
Table 98: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
Portugal (reference date 2007/12/31) Normal Areas Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not applicable1
[%] 100.0 100.0 96.8 96.8 0.0
Generated load (p.e.) 6,167,520 6,167,520 5,374,220 5,374,220 0 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
[%] 100.0 100.0 87.1 87.1 0.0 [%] 100.0 99.9 54.2 54.2 0.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 0
Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water2 Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) due to historical assessement of SA/ CSA - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5(1,2,3) not applicable due to pending transitional period for SA/CSA designated after 2000/12/31
278 277 137 137 1 6 0 0 0
100.0 99.6 49.3 49.3 0.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
6,001,860 5,995,160 3,250,920 3,250,920 6,700 253,500 0 0 0
Table 99: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Portugal discharging into normal areas as reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
6.21.7 Waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers

On 31 December 2007 Portugal reported 12 big cities/ big dischargers with a total generated load of 4,326,500 p.e.. According to the information provided by Portugal the situation concerning waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers by 31 December 2007 was as follows:
140
3 big cities / big dichargers (Lisboa, Barreiro/Moita and Loures/Frielas) with a total generated load of 1,519,000 p.e were reported to discharge into a sensitive area or respective catchment of sensitive area. No treatment was reported for Barreiro/Moita, while for 100% of the total generated load of Loures/Frielas secondary treatment and other (UV) more stringent treatment are in place, but monitoring results of BOD5 fail and monitoring results for Ntot and Ptot were not reported. 1 big city / big discharger, Costa do Estoril, with a total generated load of 797,700 p.e. was reported to discharge into a less sensitive area. Only primary treatment installations were in place. 8 big cities / big dischargers with a generated load of 2,009,800 p.e. were reported to discharge into normal areas. Matosinhos was reported with primary treatment. Four of them had at least secondary treatment for their entire generated load with complying monitoring results (Famalicao/Sto Tirso/Trofa, Santo Tirso, Gaia/Litoral and Alcanena). Coimbra has secondary treatment installations in place for 97.76% of its total generated load, but failing monitoring results for BOD5 for the major part of the total load. 80% of the total generated load of Costa de Aveiro has secondary treatment installations in place, but all monitoring results fail for BOD5 and COD. 100% of the total generated load of Porto has secondary and more stringent (UV) treatment installations with complying monitoring results in place. Lisboa had partially (36.88%) more stringent treatment (nitrogen, phosphorus and UV) with complying monitoring results for BOD5 and COD, but monitoring results for Ntot and Ptot were reported as not relevant. 51.74% of the total generated load has primary treatment in place, while a considerable fraction (11.38%) was still discharged without treatment.
Compared to the 5th Implementation Report the agglomeration Setubal (99,000 p.e.) was not reported as big city / big discharger in the 6th Implementation Report as its size was corrected due to an error in the last report.
6.22 Romania
Romania provided information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report and submitted a corrected dataset on 03 May 2010. The reference date of information is 31 December 2007. The main inconsistencies in the dataset reported by Romania were found in the imbalance among associated waste water flows for some agglomerations. The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system. The components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%. In Romania, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used. An agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements. Romania faces different transitional periods to comply with the Urban Waste Water Directive (e.g. on 31 December 2010 61% of the total generated load (p.e.) have to comply
141
with Article 3 and 51% of the total generated load have to comply with Article 4 and Article 5(2)). The final deadline of the transitional period is 31 December 2018. As compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Directive was not required by 31 December 2005 for any agglomeration, no compliance check was elaborated. The present report solely describes the present status of waste water treatment for all agglomerations with a size of 2,000 p.e. or more.

Sensitive areas Since 11 May 2005 Romania applies Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) of the Directive and therefore, does not have to identify sensitive areas. The parameters subject to more stringent treatment are nitrogen and phosphorus. Normal areas As Romania applies Article 5(8) of the Directive, normal areas do not exist.
6.22.3 Agglomerations discharging into Article 5(8) areas

For reference date 31 December 2007 Romania reported 2.620 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 25,838,316 p.e.. 49.5% of the total generated load of all agglomerations 2,000 p.e. were reported to be collected in a collecting system (12,779,463 p.e.), whereas 0.3% of the total generated load were reported to be addressed through IAS and 50.2% to be not collected in collecting system and not addressed through IAS. At reference date 31 December 2007 the installations for secondary treatment were in place for 28.6% of the total generated load, whereas installations for more stringent treatment were in place for 5.1%. Monitoring results complying with secondary treatment installations were reported for 12.6%, monitoring results complying with more stringent treatment installations were reported for 6.3% of the total generated load.
Romania (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(2,3 and 8): N, P Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 2.620 545 236 43 7 17 Generated load (p.e.) 100.0 20.8 9.0 1.6 0.3 0.6 25,838,316 12,779,463 7,382,649 3,258,650 1,315,318 1,622,792
[%]
[%] 100.0 49.5 28.6 12.6 5.1 6.3
Table 100: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Romania reported for reference date 31 December 2007 .
142

For reference date 31 December 2005 Romania documented 22 big cities/ big dischargers with a total generated load of 9,100,042 p.e.. According to the information provided by Romania the situation concerning waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers was as follows: Braila, Craiova, Galati, Ploiesti, Timisoara and Bucuresti do not have secondary or more stringent treatment. Primary treatment is reported for 83% of generated load of Ploiesti and 94% of generated load of Timisoara, but with failing monitoring results for BOD5 and COD. Secondary treatment installations were reported for a considerable share (more than 50%) of the total generated load of 16 big cities / big dischargers: Arad, Bacau, Baia Mare, Botosani, Brasov, Buzau, Cluj, Constanta, Iasi, Oradea, Piatra-Neamt, Pitesti, Ramnicu Valcea, Satu Mare, Sibiu and Tirgu Mures. More stringent treatment installations (nitrogen) were reported for 87.5% of the total generated load of Cluj-Napoca and for 88% of Iasi.
6.23 Slovakia
Slovakia provided information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (7 January 2010) and submitted a corrected dataset on 03 May 2010. The reference date of information is 31 December 2008. The main inconsistencies in the dataset reported by Slovakia were found in the imbalance among associated waste water flows for some agglomerations. The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system.. In Slovakia, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used. An agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements. In Slovakia, different transitional periods for achieving compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive are implemented. On 31 December 2004 83% of the total biodegradable load had to be in compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5(2) of the Directive; on 31 December 2008 91% of the total biodegradable load need to be compliant with Article 3 and Article 4, on 31 December 2012 97% of the total biodegradable load need to be compliant with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5(2). Agglomerations of more than 10,000 p.e. have to achieve full compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5(2) by 31 December 2010 at the latest. The final deadline to comply with the Directive is 31 December 2015.

Sensitive areas On 31 December 2004 Slovak authorities decided to designate the entire country as one sensitive area (application of Articles 5(1) and 5(2,3)). The reason for designation was (the risk of) eutrophication as concerns nitrogen and phosphorus. Normal areas
143
As Slovakia was designated as one sensitive area, normal areas do not exist.

For reference date 31 December 2008 Slovakia reported 356 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 5,259,370 p.e. In the reference year 2008, 282 agglomerations were equipped with a collecting system and 74.5% (3,919,863 p.e.) of the total generated load was reported to be collected through collecting system. 9.4% of the remaining fraction was reported to be addressed through individual and appropriate systems (IAS), whereas 16.1% were not collected in collecting systems and not addressed through IAS. In order to reach the interim target of 91% of the countrys total generated load, 205 agglomerations needed to be compliant with Article 3. Looking at the loads, the 2,021,950 p. e. generated by 38 compliant agglomerations, already amounted to 42.5 % of the required interim target. Secondary treatment installations are in place for 69.7% of the total generated load, while more stringent treatment installations are in place for 15.7% of the total generated load. Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment installations for 55.4%, monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment installations for 15.5% of the total generated load. For 205 agglomerations covering 78% (required interim target: 91 %) of the total subjected load a transition deadline of 2008 was reported. Only 28 agglomerations or 1,108,440 p.e. comply with the secondary treatment requirements of Article 4. The compliant load amounts to 23.2 % of the interim target. As the ongoing transitional period for applying with Article 5(2) is still pending, all 80 agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e are not yet subject to the more stringent treatment compliance criteria of Article 5.
Slovakia (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of 5(8)+5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 356 282 196 175 32 31 [%] 100.0 79.2 55.1 49.2 9.0 8.7 Generated load (p.e.) 5,259,370 3,919,863 3,668,283 2,912,584 826,058 815,904 [%] 100.0 74.5 69.7 55.4 15.7 15.5
Table 101: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Slovakia reported for reference date 31 December 2008 .
Slovakia (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of 5(8)+5(2,3) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3 - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3) Compliance criteria for Art. 3 not
[%] 100.0 57.6 7.9 13.7 42.4
Generated load (p.e.) 5,259,370 4,760,560 2,021,950 2,021,950 498,810
[%] 100.0 90.5 38.4 42.5 9.5
144
applicable during transitional period Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)(p.e.) Total Agglomerations and loads subject to compliance with Art. 4 as deviated from transition deadlines reported for each agglomeration Agglomerations and loads subject to compliance with Art. 4 as stipulated in the transitional period document - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable during transitional period 356 205 requirements only stipulated for load (not specific agglomerations) 28 28 151 100.0 57.6 5,259,370 4,100,746 [%] 100.0 78.0
7.9 13.7 42.4
4,786,027 1,108,440 1,108,440 473,343 Load collected in collecting system (p.e.) [%] 0 0 0 3,493,046
91.0 21.1 23.2 9.0
Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5 not applicable during transitional period
0 0 0 80
0.0 0.0 0.0 22.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 66.4
Table 102: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Slovakia reported for reference date 31 December 2008.

For reference date 31 December 2008 Slovakia had 5 big cities/ big dischargers with a total generated load of 1,701,600 p.e.. According to the information provided by Slovakia the situation concerning waste water treatment of big cities/ big dischargers was as follows: In 3 big cities / big dischargers (Zilina, Liptovsky Mikulas and Kosice) a specific fraction of the total generated load, varying from 2% to 21%, is not collected in collecting system and not addressed through IAS. 99.39% of the total generated load of Bratislava has secondary treatment, with complying monitoring results for BOD5 and COD. 99.57% of the total generated load of Ruzomberok has secondary treatment, but failing monitoring results for COD. According to information received after the Q2009 reporting period (information received on 12 November 2010), both installation and monitoring results of agglomeration Ruzomberok (461 100 p.e.) meanwhile comply with the requirements of Art. 4 UWWTD. Liptovsky Mikulas (87.51% of total generated load) and Kosice (63.76% of total generated load) have more stringent treatment (nitrogen) in place, with complying monitoring results for BOD5 and COD. 84.99% of total generated load of Zilina and 4.94% of of total generated load of Bratislava have more stringent treatment (nitrogen and phosphorus) in place, with complying monitoring results for BOD5 and COD.
145
Compared to the 5th Implementation Report Nitra was not reported as big city / big discharger as its size decreased below 150,000 p.e. and is 125,000 p.e as of 31 December 2008.
6.24 Slovenia
Slovenia provided information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report.The reference date of information is 31 December 2007. The main inconsistencies in the dataset reported by Slovenia were found in the imbalance among associated waste water flows for some agglomerations. The cumulative load of one or more agglomerations treatment plant(s) did not match the load reported as collected in a collecting system. The components collected in collecting system, addressed through IAS and not collected in collecting system and no addressed through IAS did not sum up to 100%. Furthermore, some discrepancies between the spatial information reported and the situation evident from submitted GIS files for some agglomerations were spotted. In Slovenia, one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants while at the same time, one urban waste water treatment plant can serve more than one agglomeration. This means that the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [m : n] is used. As regards the transitional periods Slovenia needs to be compliant with Article 3, 4 and 5(2) by 31 December 2008 for agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. in sensitive areas. By 31 December 2010, compliance with Article 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Directive shall be achieved for agglomerations with more than 15,000 p.e.. The final deadline for compliance with the requirements of Article 3, 4 and 5(2) is 31 December 2015. As compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Directive was not required by 31 December 2007 for any agglomeration, no compliance check was elaborated. The present report solely describes the present status of waste water treatment for all agglomerations with a size of 2,000 p.e. or more.

Sensitive areas Slovenia applies Article 5(2,3) and reported in UWWTD Questionnaire 2009 58 sensitive areas and their respective catchment areas of sensitive areas, which were designated on 9 June 2007 due to criteria a (nitrogen and/or phosporus) and/or criteria c (Bathing Water Directive).

For reference date 31 December 2007 Slovenia reported 156 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 1,531,749 p.e.. 141 agglomerations with a total generated load of 1,159,896 p.e. (75.7% of total generated load) have a collecting system in place, while 24.2% of the total generated load is not collected and not addressed through IAS. Secondary treatment installations are in place for 61.1% of the total generated load, for 56.2% of the total generated load, monitoring results comply with secondary treatment requirements. For 21.2% of the total generated load more stringent treatment installations
146
are in place, while 53.4% of the generated load comply with monitoring results for more stringent treatment requirements.
Slovenia (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) and 5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 156 141 99 78 29 74 Generated load (p.e.) 1,531,749 1,159,896 936,105 860,257 325,132 817,754
[%]
[%]
100.0 90.4 63.5 50.0 18.6 47.4
100.0 75.7 61.1 56.2 21.2 53.4
Table 103: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Slovenia reported for reference date 31 December 2007 .

32 agglomerations with a generated load of 240,435 p.e discharge into sensitive areas. For 84.5% of the generated load a collecting system is in place, while the remaining share of the total generated load is not collected and not addressed through IAS. Secondary treatment installations are in place for 53.7% of the total generated load, for 39.7% of the total generated load, monitoring results comply with secondary treatment requirements. For 7% of the total generated load more stringent treatment installations are in place, while 28.3% of the generated load comply with monitoring results for more stringent treatment requirements.
Slovenia (reference date 2007/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) and 5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 32 31 25 19 5 16 Generated load (p.e.) 240,435 203,176 129,034 95,341 16,811 68,132
[%]
[%]
100.0 96.9 78.1 59.4 15.6 50.0
100.0 84.5 53.7 39.7 7.0 28.3
Table 104: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Slovenia discharging into sensitive areas reported for reference date 31 December 2007.
147

124 agglomerations with a generated load of 1,291,314 p.e discharge into normal areas. For 74.1% of the generated load a collecting system is in place, while the remaining share of the total generated load is not collected and not addressed through IAS. Secondary treatment installations are in place for 62.5% of the total generated load, for 59.2% of the total generated load, monitoring results comply with secondary treatment requirements. For 23.9% of the total generated load more stringent treatment installations are in place, while 58.1% of the generated load comply with monitoring results for more stringent treatment requirements.
Slovenia (reference date 2007/12/31) Normal Areas Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 124 110 74 59 24 58 Generated load (p.e.) 1,291,314 956,720 807,071 764,916 308,322 749,622
[%]
[%]
100.0 88.7 59.7 47.6 19.4 46.8
100.0 74.1 62.5 59.2 23.9 58.1
Table 105: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Slovenia discharging into normal areas reported for reference date 31 December 2007.

Slovenia documented one big citiy/ big discharger by 31 December 2007. According to the information provided by Slovenia the situation concerning waste water treatment of Ljubljana was as follows: Ljubljana, consisting of six agglomerations with a total of 351,623 p.e., had secondary treatment for the major part (79.9%) of its generated load and discharges into a normal area. 20% of the generated load of Ljubljana is not collected in collecting system and not addressed through IAS. For 2.9% of the generated load more stringent treatment installations are available.
6.25 Spain
Spain provided information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report.The reference date is 31 December 2008. The discrepancies between the spatial information reported and the situation stemming from submitted GIS files constituted the main mistake in the dataset reported by Spain. This mistake concerned a considerable part of Spain: more than half of the waste water would discharge into a receiving area (RCA) labelled ES-NA-2008 "Area Normal de Espaa". The
148
code and name of this RCA suggest it is a normal area designated in 2008. However, Spain attributes this RCA with type 98 sensitivity, i. e. catchment in the sense of Art. 5(5) but fails to identify a receiving SA. All agglomerations discharging into this area were assessed as regards compliance with Article 5 as reported, but are not yet subject to compliance as the transitional period for the designation of this area did not expire yet. In Spain one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. In this case an agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.

Sensitive areas Spain applies Article 5(2,3) of the UWWTD and has designated 392 sensitive areas as well as 394 catchment areas of sensitive areas covering the entire country (2 catchment of sensitive areas were reported without relating sensitive area: Albufeira do Alqueva/Tronco Central Rio Guadiana and Albufeira do Torrao (Rio Tamega for reference date 31 December 2008 due to criteria a (nitrogen and/or phosphorus) and/or criteria c (Bathing Water Directive). Compared to the last UWWTD reporting in 2007, Spain reported that 54 SA/CSA and 1 LSA became inactive. Normal areas Spain reports more than half of its waste water load to discharge into a receiving area (RCA) labelled ES-NA-2008 "Area Normal de Espaa". Code and name of this RCA suggest it is a normal area designated in 2008. However, Spain attributes this RCA with type 98 sensitivity, i. e. catchment in the sense of Art. 5(5) but fails to identify a receiving SA.
6.25.3 Overview of agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas applying Article 5(2,3)
For reference date 31 December 2008 Spain reported 2,289 agglomerations larger than 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 68,721,121 p.e.. 98.9% of the total generated load was reported to be collected in a collecting system, the remaining fraction is addressed through IAS (0.1%) or not collected in collection system and not addressed through IAS (1%). 2,191 agglomerations with 97.3% of the total generated load are compliant with Article 3. 2,120 agglomerations with a total generated load of 67,362,005 p.e need to be compliant with Article 4, of which 1,106 agglomerations (and 82.6% of the subjected load) are compliant with the requirements of secondary treatment. 120 agglomerations with a load of 573,885 p.e do not need to be compliant with Article 5 as their size is between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e. and they are discharging into coastal waters. From 84 agglomerations subject to the criteria of compliance for more stringent treatment, 29 agglomerations (i.e. 32.4% of the load) are compliant with the requirements of Article 5. For 704 agglomerations and the major part of the total generated load, the requirements of Article 5 are not yet be applicable due to the transitional periods of the designation / last review of the respective SA / CSA after the year 2001. For 5 agglomerations Article 5 is not applicable as no load of these agglomerations enters a collecting system.
149
The results of the historical assessment are included in the figures of the summary tables below. The summary tables on normal areas and sensitive areas include all agglomerations, which discharged in the respective area according to data reported in Q2009. Agglomerations reported as discharging into a normal area in Q2009, but reported as discharging into a sensitive area in former reports, are presented in the summary tables for agglomerations discharging in normal areas under the category Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) due to historical assessment of SA/ CSA.
Spain (reference date 2008/12/31), application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment Number of agglomerations 2,289 2,240 1,658 1,192 767 691
[%] 100.0 97.9 72.4 52.1 33.5 30.2
[%] 100.0 98.9 90.6 81.8 60.9 59.2
Table 106: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Spain reported for reference date 31 December 2008 .
Spain (reference date 2008/12/31), application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) Total Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 3
Number of agglomerations 2,289 2,289
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 95.7 95.7
68,721,121 68,721,121 66,864,634 66,864,634
100.0 100.0 97.3 97.3
- of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation 2,191 to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with 2,191 Art. 3)
Load collected in collecting system (p.e.)
[%]
2,289 2,120
100.0 92.6 48.3 52.2 2.1
67,935,891 67,362,005 55,637,921 55,637,921 0
100.0 99.2 81.9 82.6 0.0
- of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation 1,106 to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with 1,106 Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable 49 because no load enters collecting system Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. 120 - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water or catchment of coastal water 2
5.2
573,885
0.8
150
Agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5(1)+5(2,3) (in relation to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5(1)+5(2,3) (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with Art. 5) Compliance criteria for Art. 5(1)+5(2,3) applicable for SA/CSA designated after 2001 Compliance criteria for Art. 5(1)+5(2,3) not applicable because no load enters collecting system
84 29 29 704 5
3.7 1.3 34.5 30.8 0.2
4,796,525 1,555,505 1,555,505 56,459,707 0
7.1 2.3 32.4 83.1 0.0
Table 107: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Spain reported for reference date 31 December 2008.

Spain documented 15 big cities / big dischargers (including 86 agglomerations associated to the big cities / big dischargers) with a generated load of 36,405,688 p.e. by 31 December 2008: Badajoz, Bilbao, Cartagena, Logrono, Madrid, Mar Menor Sur, Mataro, Molina de Segura Norte, Murcia, Pamplona, Sabadell, San Sebastian, Santander, Tarrasa, and Vitoria-Gasteiz. According to the information provided by Spain the situation concerning waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers was: The total generated load (100%) is collected in a collecting system. For the agglomeration La Esperanza-La Laguna Sur-Santa Cruz-Valles 2% of the load is addressed through IAS and a considerable part (28% or 186.155 p.e.) of the load is not collected in a collecting system and not addressed through IAS. In Adeje-Arona Oeste 5% of the total generated load are not collected in collecting system and not addressed through IAS. Therefore these two agglomerations are assessed as in non compliance with Article 3. 81 agglomerations have secondary treatment installations in place. The following 9 agglomerations are not compliant with the requirements of secondary treatment as regards Article 4: Gijon Este, Pineda de Mar, Algeciras, Avila, Almeria, Adeke-Arona Oeste, A Coruna, La Esperanza-La Laguna Sur-Santa Cruz Valles and DonostiaSan Sebastian. 53 agglomerations have more stringent treatment installations in place. Four agglomerations are in non-compliance with Article 5, while all other agglomerations are not yet applicable to the requirements of Article 5 due to pending transitional periods of the designation / last review of SA / CSA.
6.26 Sweden
Sweden provided information within the official deadline to report for the Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report.The reference date of information is 31 December 2008. No major errors and inconsistencies in the data reported by Sweden were found. In Sweden one agglomeration can be served by several urban waste water treatment plants, therefore the ratio [agglomeration : UWWTP] = [1 : n] is used. In this case an
151
agglomeration is considered to be only in compliance in case all UWWTPs serving this agglomeration are considered as being in compliance with the Directive's requirements.

Sensitive areas In 1994 Sweden identified all its waters as sensitive areas, applying Article 5(1) and 5(2,3). On 28 May 1998 Sweden confirmed its identification to the Commission, indicating that the criterion applied was eutrophication and that tertiary treatment of phosphorus was necessary in all its agglomerations of more than 10,000 p.e. to combat eutrophication. The southern coast of Sweden was designated with criterion a (N and P), while the northern coast and inland waters of Sweden were designated with criterion a (P).
6.26.3 Agglomerations discharging into different receiving areas

For reference date 31 December 2008 Sweden reported 345 agglomerations 2,000 p.e. with a generated load of 8,473,803 p.e.. In the reference year 2008 100% of the total generated load was collected in collecting systems and therefore assessed as compliant with Article 3. Out of 294 agglomerations (and 97.3% of the total generated load), which are subject to compliance with the requirements of secondary treatment, 276 (and 98.6% of the subjected load) are compliant with Article 4. 51 agglomerations with 2.7% of the total generated load are not subject to compliance with Article 4 as their size amounts between 2,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. and discharges into coastal waters. 130 agglomerations (and 88% of the total generated load) are subject to compliance with more stringent treatment as required in Article 5, out of these 85 with a generated load of 5,570,126 p.e. (74.7% of subjected load) are in compliance with Article 5.
Sweden (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) and Art. 5(2,3); entire Number of country sensitive area criterion a (P or N+P) agglomerations Total Collecting system in place Secondary treatment in place Monitoring results comply with secondary treatment More stringent treatment in place Monitoring results comply with more stringent treatment 345 345 345 325 345 295
[%]
[%]
100.0 100.0 100.0 94.2 100.0 85.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 98.5 100.0 76.9
Table 108: Agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Sweden reported for reference date 31 December 2008.
Sweden (reference date 2008/12/31) Application of Art. 5(1) and Art. 5(2,3); entire country sensitive area criterion a (P or N+P)
[%]
[%]
152
345 345
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
8,473,803 8,473,803 8,473,803 8,473,803
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
- of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation 345 to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 3 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with 345 Art. 3) Number of agglomerations
[%]
Load collected in collecting systems (p.e.)
[%]
Total
345
100.0 85.2 80.0 93.9
8,473,803 8,243,194 8,129,386 8,129,386
100.0 97.3 95.9 98.6
Agglomerations subject to compliance with 294 Art. 4 - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation 276 to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 4 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with 276 Art. 4) Compliance criteria for Art. 4 not applicable due to agglomerations of between 2,000 p.e. 51 - 10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal water Agglomerations subject to compliance with 130 Art. 5(1) + 5(2,3) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation 85 to all agglomerations 2,000 p.e.) - of which: compliant with Art. 5 (in relation to agglomerations subject to compliance with 85 Art. 5)
14.8
230,609
2.7
37.7 24.6 65.4
7,455,350 5,570,126 5,570,126
88.0 65.7 74.7
Table 109: Legal compliance check of agglomerations 2,000 p.e. in Sweden reported for reference date 31 December 2008.

On 31 December 2008 Sweden documented 6 big cities/ big dischargers with a total generated load of 3,387,043 p.e.. Waste water treatment was reported to be performed in the following way: All big cities / big dischargers have a collecting system in place and are compliant with the requirements of Article 3. Goeteborg, Helsingborg, Malmoe, Stockholm and Uppsala had nitrogen and phosphorus removal in place. Monitoring results for BOD5, COD, Ntot and Ptot comply for all 5 big cities / big dischargers except for Uppsala and Goeteborg which were reported with failing monitoring results for Ntot. Linkoeping hat phosphorus removal only, and passing monitoring results for BOD5, COD and Ptot, while monitoring results for Ntot fail.
153
7 Annex II: List of designated sensitive areas/catchment areas of sensitive areas in the Member States
See separate document.
154
8 Annex III: Waste water treatment of European big cities/ big dischargers
See separate document.
155

Annex I To Summary Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Annex I To Summary Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

6th UWWTD implementation report

Situation as of 31 December 2007 or 31 December 2008.

Final report as of 8 August 2011.

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

1 List of abbreviations and key concepts

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Slovenia Slovakia United Kingdom

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

2.1 Status of waste water infrastructure in place

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

2.2 Assessment of compliance with the requirements of the UWWTD

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

3 Background of this report

3.2 Implementation reports and data request 2009

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

The letter was sent out to Member States on 08 July 2009.

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

3.3 Quality and main inconsistencies of data

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

3.4 Purpose of this report

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

4 Methodology of data evaluation and presentation of the results

4.1 Presentation of the status of waste water infrastructure in place

4.2 Assessment of compliance with the requirements and deadlines/transitional periods

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

5 UWWTD implementation in EU Member States

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

UWWTD Articles applied

Number of sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive areas identified

% of national territory identified as sensitive area or catchment of sensitive area

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

5.2 Status of waste water infrastructure in 26 Member States

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Draft Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 16 July 2011)

Draft Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 16 July 2011)

Status of waste water infrastructure

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Assessment of compliance with the requirements of the UWWTD

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).

Art. 4- compliance in % of subjected load

80 compliance all cty's: 68 60

country rank (by load subjected to Art. 4)

Final Sixth UWWTD Implementation Report (as of 8 August 2011).