Bärbel Muller-Karulis, regarding nutrient removal, what did the other EU bodies say about the Commission’s proposal?

"The EU Parliament had its say on the proposal on 5 October and the EU Council on 16 October and both proposed a number of

changes. Unfortunately, both Parliament and Council voted to soften the nutrient removal requirements proposed by the Commission. Both proposed that wastewater treatment plants should continue to be allowed to rely on natural nitrogen retention in rivers and lakes to reach removal requirements; permanently according to the Parliament and for a period of 15 years according to the Council. This is problematic since the level of retention is highly uncertain and differs immensely with waterbody characteristics, local climate etc.

Both also opted to bypass nitrogen removal requirements altogether during the colder part of the year and suggest that days with wastewater temperatures below 12 degrees should simply be disregarded in removal calculations. Parliament and Council also did not follow the Commission’s strict (and ambitious) definition of 'urban' areas and both would like to apply the directive in areas with a higher population density than the Commission, leaving more effluent in rural areas to be treated in less efficient individual systems."

Wastewater treatment plants in the EU part of the Baltic Sea drainage basin. Based on data reported to the EU Waterbase.

Anything on the positive note?

"Yes, the Parliament and Council still agreed to tighten nutrient removal requirements compared to the current directive, albeit with less ambition for nitrogen (80% removal compared to the Commission’s 85%). The Council would also like to see lower phosphorus removal requirements (87.5% compared to the Commission’s 90%), while the EU Parliament even proposed higher (93%) phosphorus removal.

Parliament and Council also agreed to tighten regulations as to which nutrient – nitrogen, phosphorus, or both – should be removed in tertiary treatment. Both propose that large wastewater treatment plants (Parliament: > 100 000 pe (population equivalents), Council: > 150 000 pe) are required to remove both nitrogen and phosphorus, whereas smaller plants can continue to adapt their strategy to the 'local situation'."

What can the proposed changes in the proposal mean for the Baltic Sea?

"Actually, not too much. There are probably other areas in the European Union where the new directive could have more effect. As Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre already concluded in a factsheet published this spring, the requirements in the Commission’s proposal have – except for nitrogen removal in the northern part of the catchment – already to a large extent been outpaced by the development in this sector in many of the EU countries in the Baltic Sea catchment, where wastewater treatment is fairly advanced today.

To achieve nutrient load reductions, the EU should require tertiary treatment for both nitrogen and phosphorus throughout the entire Baltic Sea catchment in all plants > 10 000 pe and remove loopholes such as exemptions for cold weather and accounting for natural nitrogen retention. Otherwise nitrogen removal will not be implemented in the northern part of the catchment area."

Ellen Bruno, what about the demand for advanced (quaternary) treatment of chemicals that the Commission proposed?

Ellen Bruno.

"The proposal from the Commission for the first time included demand for quaternary treatment of micropollutants in treatment plants which was very welcome by our researchers. However, both the Parliament and the Council has weakened the original demand for quaternary treatment at plats above 100 000 pe to plants above 150 000 pe and 200 000 pe respectively. For those treatment plants above 10 000 pe (but below 150/200 000 pe) requirement of quaternary treatment is proposed to be based on whether the areas are identified as sensitive to pollution. If the Parliament's proposal goes through, around 40 plants in the Baltic Sea catchment area will not be automatically obliged to introduce advanced wastewater treatment for micropollutants, compared with the proposal from the Commission. Those plus 15 plants will possibly be excluded if the proposal follow the line of the Council. Deadline for fulfilling the requirement has unfortunately also been pushed forward from 2040 to 2045."

What happens now?

"Since the Commission, the Parliament and the Council all had different opinions the directive will enter the EU’s trilogue procedure to negotiate a compromise. The outcome of the trialogue will also determine the impact of the new directive on loads of nutrients and contaminants to the Baltic Sea."

Lisa Bergqvist

Read more

Fact sheet: Potential effects of the proposed UWWTD on nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea

Response to the European Commission proposal for a recast Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive