Brussels, 29/05/2009 (Agence Europe) - In a Special Report published on Thursday 28 May, the European Court of Auditors says that in general structural measures have contributed to an improvement in waste water treatment in the four member states audited (Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal). It states that, overall, treatment plants co-financed by structural measures were performing adequately. The Court found some stations to be operating below capacity, however, and in a minority of cases EU requirements were not met with regard to effluent quality. The European Commission has been asked to review the directive on sewage sludge and it promises to do so within the next few months.
Waste water and sewage sludge from urban agglomerations can affect the quality of Europe's lakes, rivers, coastal waters, soils and groundwaters. As a result, the EU has adopted a series of directives and has also co-financed the building of urban waste water treatment plants through the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund).
This has improved significantly the coverage rate of the urban population served by waste water treatment.
The Court's audit focused on Cohesion Fund and ERDF funded plants for the 1994-99 and 2000-06 programme periods, in Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, which represented the majority of the spending in this area. The audit also looked at the disposal of sewage sludge produced as a by-product of waste water treatment and the role of the Commission in the area of waste water.
Waste water treatment. In terms of the performance of waste water treatment plants, the Court found that, in general, those plants co-financed by structural measures perform at an adequate level. However: - seven of the 26 plants were found to be operating below capacity (due, in six cases, to a failure to connect all potential domestic and industrial users to the treatment plants and, in one case, to the loss of local industries; - the quality of the effluent did not meet EU requirements in nine out of 73 cases due to inadequately pre-treated industrial waste water being discharged into the sewage network, a lack of expertise on the part of some local authorities and a lack of adequate equipment or technology in areas designated as sensitive. The Court recommends, therefore that member states should ensure that sufficient thought is given to the connection of newly constructed treatment plants to the sewage network and take steps to improve the quality of the water discharged.
Sewage sludge treatment and disposal. With regard to the plants' treatment and disposal of sewage sludge, the Court found that two thirds of the treatment plants co-financed by structural measures re-use the sludge resulting from the treatment of waste water following methods recommended in EU directives, with almost all of them preferring its re-use on agricultural land. However: - in 25 out of 73 plants, unsustainable non-re-use methods were found, such as on-site storage; - in three out of the four member states, for some plants, the relevant authorities were not able to indicate the quantity of sludge produced, its content or how it was disposed of; - although the Court found that the requirements of the Sewage Sludge Directive were being adhered to, developments in sludge treatment and disposal subsequent to 1986 are not taken account of in EU legislation, though some member states apply more stringent standards. Before submitting projects for co-financing, member states should ensure that urban waste water treatment plants have a strategy for the disposal of sewage sludge, the Court recommends.
The Commission is asked to review the Sewage Sludge Directive. As the current directive was adopted in 1986, it does not take into account subsequent developments in techniques and methods of sludge treatment and disposal, the Court states. For example the directive does not require testing for organic contaminants such as PCBs, or pathogens such as E. coli, whereas some EU member states set maximum concentration levels for organic contaminants in their national regulations and certain non-EU countries have set standards aimed at reducing the harmful effects of pathogens in sludge. In addition, there is no mention in the directive of other popular land applications, such as forestry. If revision is deemed necessary, it is likely that new limits for various substances would be more stringent than those found in the current directive, the Court says.
In its response, The Commission says it is preparing a review of the 1986 directive on sewage sludge based on a full impact assessment of the options and their costs and advantages.
Effectiveness of the role of the Commission. The Court noted the following significant weaknesses in the role played by the Commission in relation to its approval and follow up of Cohesion Fund projects and ERDF major projects: - the Commission approved projects which did not include key information in the application for assistance as required by the Guide to the Cohesion Fund (e.g. performance objectives in relation to sludge disposal and quality of receiving waters); - often there was no information on the quality of discharged water, receiving waters and the quality and the nature of the disposal of the sewage sludge included in the project final report on Cohesion Fund projects. Without such information the Commission is not in a position to carry out the necessary evaluation of final reports before payment of the final balance.
On the consideration given by the Commission relating to EU environmental principles, the Court noted the following: - a number of studies have indicated possible benefits on the environment to be gained by moving to non-phosphate-based detergents; - the Commission did not always take the “polluter-pays” principle sufficiently into account, as the Court's review found that the tariffs applied were generally too low to cover operating costs. Furthermore, tariff rates were not often included in final reports, making difficult any assessment of financial sustainability. (L.C./transl.rt)