BDI on the Commission's proposal on water pollution - updating EU rules on urban wastewater treatmen

Position

BDI on the Commission's proposal on water pollution - updating EU rules on urban wastewater treatment

Revision of the EU Urban Waste Long example: (Arial, 20 pt, bold) Watertitle, Treatment Directive Draft bill/ Government draft (UWWTD) Act to Modernise the Structure of Network Charges

Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V.

Status: 07.03.2023

Amendment of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWTD)

Table of contents Introduction ..................................................................................... 3 1. Expansion of the Quaternary Treatment (Article 8) ............... 4 2. Introduction of the polluter pays principle/financing of the quaternary treatment (Article 9) ..................................................... 4 3. Political decisions based on scientifically sound analyses .. 6 4. Organisation for extended producer responsibility ............... 6 5. Water reuse (Article 15) ............................................................ 7 6. Waste water monitoring (Article 17) ........................................ 7 7. Annex I – requirements for urban wastewater ....................... 7 About the BDI .................................................................................. 9 Imprint .............................................................................................. 9

Amendment of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWTD)

Introduction On 19 October 2022, the European Commission published the proposal on the revision of the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD), together with the results of the Impact Assessment. The European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) - in short: UWWTD - of 21 May 1991 aims at the discharge and treatment of wastewater from households and industry and thus contributes to water protection. A further development and updating of the UWWTD makes sense from the point of view of German industry, so that urban wastewater disposal in Europe can continue to make an important contribution to keeping water bodies clean and achieving a good water status in the future.

German industry strongly supports the achievement of the objective of good water status according to the Water Framework Directive and is prepared to continue to make a major contribution here, also within the framework of the polluter pays principle. The implementation of the Urban Wastewater Directive has progressed very differently in the member states, so in addition to the revision of the directive, the urgent goal must be to achieve uniformly good implementation of the UWWTD in all EU member states.

Federal Association of the German Industry e.V.

Lobby register number R000534 Home address Wide street 29 10178 Berlin Postal address 11053 Berlin Contact Catrin Schiffer, lawyer T: +493020281582 F: +493020282582 E-mail C.Schiffer@bdi.eu Internet www.bdi.eu

Amendment of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWTD)

1. Expansion of the Quaternary Treatment (Article 8) Due to the large number of trace substances, German industry considers an expansion of the quaternary treatment in municipal wastewater treatment plants to be generally expedient if relevant concentrations of trace substances are detected by clear monitoring over a period of time to be defined and harmful effects on ecological status or human health (drinking water) need to be concerned.

A targeted expansion based on polluted regions makes sense for achieving the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). From the point of view of German industry, a rigid nationwide expansion geared to the size of the wastewater treatment plants (> 100,000 p.e.) is not expedient. We see a more efficient and targeted expansion of four treatment stages in regions where there is cause for concern and thus a concrete need for action. A risk assessment should be open to the member states in the first step, i.e. when deciding which wastewater treatment plant needs a quaternary treatment .

In addition, much better water/wastewater monitoring and digitised data exchange, as well as the centralised collection of data, should become a stronger focus of the directive. The EU member states must contribute accordingly to the establishment and operation of these data infrastructures, so that a much finer and more precise set of measures can be taken in the future.

2. Introduction of the polluter pays principle/financing of the quaternary treatment (Article 9) In Article 9, the proposal implements the so-called extended producer responsibility in water law for the distributors of medicinal products for human use and cosmetic products and thus provides for a one-sided burden on two branches of industry. Thus, especially the manufacturers of medicinal products for human use and cosmetics would be massively affected by the changes in the UWWTD, as they are to fully finance the obligatory introduction of the quaternary treatment.

In order to implement the circular economy goals of the EU, which are clarified among other things in the European Green Deal or the zero pollution strategy, it is necessary to finance the quaternary treatment in a way that is fair to the polluter. Incentives for prevention at the source make ecological and, in part, economic sense since cleaning wastewater can subsequently turn out to be more expensive in macroeconomic terms than reducing inputs into

www.bdi.eu

Page 4 from 9

Amendment of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWTD)

the wastewater system. The basis for the inclusion of certain substances hazardous to water should be a neutral assessment of the health and ecological risks.

The BDI is of the opinion that a one-sided financial burden on individual branches of industry to substantiate the polluter pays principle is not appropriate and not proportionate. In principle, under the polluter pays principle, all responsible polluters of an environmental impact must bear the costs for its prevention or elimination. The discharge of micropollutants into water bodies is subject to different causal chains, which means that various polluters can be considered. When making a concrete decision on whether or not to charge a polluter, it is first necessary to determine the direct contribution of the water pollution. Furthermore, it must be examined which pollution is assigned to which actor.

In this context, it is inconclusive and incomprehensible why the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries should be unilaterally burdened with the financing of a quaternary treatment. Only a small part of the so-called micropollutants that can be removed via a quaternary treatment actually originate from pharmaceutical residues. The European Commission assumes that 66 percent of the trace substances in EU wastewater originate from pharmaceuticals. To our knowledge, however, these assumptions are not based on scientifically sound analyses and thus lead to misguided political decisions.

The figure of 66 percent share of the pharmaceutical sector in micropollutant pollution is scientifically questionable and does not represent a reliable distribution because the EPR approach to calculating micropollutant pollution is not transparent: the main micropollutant pollution percentages come from the report "Feasibility of an EPR System for Micropollutants," which does not provide a clear description of the data calculation. In addition, some of the data come from data sources that have not been reviewed and are not publicly available. In addition, the studies cited in the Impact Assessment (IA) and considered by the Commission focus primarily on pharmaceutical micropollutants. In contrast, the literature search conducted as part of the scientific investigation identified 22 additional studies that were not considered in the IA. These studies address other micropollutants, such as biocides, perand polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), microplastics or plastic additives, nanoparticles, metals or metalloids, detergents and cleaning agents, or other household and industrial chemicals. Consequently, consideration of these additional studies would have provided a more balanced picture.

www.bdi.eu

Page 5 from 9

Amendment of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWTD)

Furthermore, if we compare the number of existing studies on pharmaceuticals with the total number of studies on micropollutants, we see that pharmaceuticals are the best-studied group of micropollutants. This leads to the fact that their share in the allocation of pollutants is not representative, and the derivation of the 66 percent does not correspond to reality.

Taking these results into account, it is not understandable why a system-relevant sector such as the pharmaceutical industry should be unilaterally disadvantaged by additional costs, although micropollutants are demonstrably caused by many different substance groups. Active pharmaceutical ingredients account for only a small proportion of all registered chemical substances and are also only used in low concentrations. A one-sided financing model at the expense of the pharmaceutical industry would be discriminatory.

If one interprets the term "polluter" extensively, then all actors - manufacturers, trade, private and professional consumers, such as hospitals and agriculture - must be taken into account. How the highest possible environmental quality can be achieved, which solution proves to be economically and administratively favourable, whether the choice is reasonable for those affected, which legal barriers exist in individual cases and how high the chances of political enforcement are, must be weighed up politically with all relevant actors.

3. Political decisions based on scientifically sound analyses The health hazards and environmental relevance of numerous trace substances cannot yet be conclusively assessed today. In many cases, the assessment of the effects of trace substances on the ecological status of water bodies has not yet been scientifically proven. The basis of any environmental policy discussion and decision on the significance of trace substances in water bodies should be a well-founded scientific analysis and assessment as well as a realistic risk assessment. The analytical findings alone, based on the considerably more efficient measurement and analysis methods that have been developed in recent times, are not sufficient justification for the introduction of measures with regard to the scope of the decision.

4. Organisation for extended producer responsibility According to the proposal, manufacturers are to exercise their extended producer responsibility collectively by joining an extended producer responsibility organisation. Member States should ensure that producers bear the full

www.bdi.eu

Page 6 from 9

Amendment of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWTD)

costs of introducing the quaternary treatment, including monitoring and reporting costs.

The introduction of extended producer responsibility in water law thus creates an excess of bureaucracy, the costs of which should be invested more sensibly in improving the ecological status of water bodies. For example, the bureaucratic effort for the participation of manufacturers in the "Cleanup" causes costs in the public space (cigarettes, wet wipes, "ToGo" cups, etc.) amounting to approximately 400 million €/a for 40 positions.

5. Water reuse (Article 15) Article 15, which is written in general terms and without clear objectives, contradicts the EU objective of environmentally and climate-friendly water cycles. Against the background of increased and prolonged droughts, water reuse systems and rainwater storage can be an important contribution to the solution. The Commission should oblige Member States to introduce reuse systems in particularly affected areas in accordance with existing water legislation. A good area of application would be the irrigation of urban greenery.

6. Waste water monitoring (Article 17) German industry welcomes the EU Commission's recognition of the potential of wastewater monitoring for pandemic prevention and control. Our member companies have cooperated well with the municipalities and competent authorities over the past two years and contributed to the clarification. In this respect, we consider Article 17 on the establishment of a control system with the corresponding distribution of roles to be sensible. However, the question of financing remains unresolved. In our view, the costs for monitoring should be borne by the national health budgets.

7. Annex I – requirements for urban wastewater According to annex I, C, no. 1 c) (indirect discharge of industrial wastewater) it shall be ensured that all the polluting substances contained in the non-domestic wastewater can be abated by the urban wastewater treatment plant.

Such an undifferentiated obligation for abatement of pollutants is neither necessary nor appropriate. For the question how substances contained in the wastewater should be treated, the requirements of the Water Framework

www.bdi.eu

Page 7 from 9

Amendment of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWTD)

Directive are in particular decisive. This aspect is already fully covered by annex I, C, No. 1 e). Therefore, annex I, C, No. 1 c) should be deleted.

Regardless these fundamental concerns, the regulation as such is also not comprehensible. Annex I, C, No. 1c) applies to all pollutants contained in the wastewater independently from their concentration in the wastewater and their relevance for the receiving water body. This is not appropriate. Rather, it should only be referred to the relevant substances – according to the common practice so far.

Moreover, the requirements for the abatement of pollutants in the wastewater can only be based on the state of the art (if available and applicable) respectively the requirements of the EU-Water-Framework Directive. And finally, it should be clarified that the background concentrations in the receiving water body should be taken into consideration (i.e. for substances that occur naturally in elevated concentrations in the receiving water body).

First, considering the above-mentioned fundamental concerns annex I, C, No. 1 c should be deleted.

If annex I, C, No. 1 C isn´t deleted, then it should at least be modified as follows: “(c) the relevant polluting substances contained in the non-domestic wastewater can be abated by the urban wastewater treatment plant according to the current state of the art - if applicable - and according to the requirements of Directive 2000/60/EC. Background concentration of the receiving water body should be considered.”

www.bdi.eu

Page 8 from 9

Amendment of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWTD)

About the BDI The BDI conveys the interests of German industry to those with political responsibility. In this way, it supports companies in global competition. It has an extensive network in Germany and Europe, in all important markets and in international organisations. The BDI provides political support for international market development. And it provides information and economic policy advice on all topics relevant to industry. The BDI is the umbrella organisation of German industry and industry-related service providers. It speaks for 40 industry associations and more than 100,000 companies with around eight million employees. Membership is voluntary. 15 regional representatives represent the interests of industry at regional level.

Imprint Federation of German Industries (BDI) Breite Straße 29, 10178 Berlin www.bdi.eu T: +49 30 2028-0 Lobby Register Number: R000534

Contact Catrin Schiffer, lawyer Officer Department Environment, Technology and Sustainability T: +49 30 2028-1582 C.Schiffer@bdi.eu BDI document number: D 1740

www.bdi.eu

Page 9 from 9