20 Power Plant Open Cooling System in the Context of the Objectives …
403
The description in the updated RBMP concerning the power plant canal did not
provide for a derogation under Article 4(4) WFD.
On the other hand, it was indicated that the body of water which receives spent
cooling water, and which constitutes a separate body of surface water, was subject to
monitoring. It was determined that its ecological status/potential was “moderate” and
its chemical status was “good”, but the current status of the body of surface water was
found to be “bad”. The river had the status of a heavily modified water body. However,
in the “assessment of the risk of failing to achieve environmental objectives” column,
it was stated that it was “not at risk”. For the river, derogation (4(4)-1) included in
the RBMP in force was repeated: “in connection with the fact that it directly receives
spent CHP cooling waters, the water in the river has an elevated temperature which
prevents the achievement of a status which would enable the water to be classified as
a useful habitat for cyprinids. The impact of saline waters of the Vistula River”. The
description in the updated RBMP concerning the river in question did not provide
for derogations under Article 4(4) or under Article 4(7) WFD.
20.3.3 Analysis of Possible Derogations
It should be emphasised that in the case of derogations under Article 4(4), the
extension of the deadline and indication of the reasons for the derogation should
be specifically set out and explained in the RBMP. This means that the updated
RBMP should include information on one of the three conditions for the application
of the derogation, i.e. whether the derogation was introduced due to:
a. The lack of technical feasibility of achieving good water status promptly;
b. The disproportionate costs of achieving good water status promptly;
c. Natural conditions.
Similarly, the updated RBMP should include a justification for the derogation
under Article 4(7) where it is the result of new sustainable human development
activities. Such new activities include any investment projects, including a water
permit for the use of water or for wastewater disposal. This derogation is acceptable
where:
(a) “All practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of
the body of water;
(b) The reasons for those modifications or alterations are specifically set out and
explained in the river basin management plan;
(c) The reasons for those modifications or alterations are of overriding public
interest and/or the benefits to the environment and to society of achieving the
environmental objectives are outweighed by the benefits of the new modifications or alterations to human health, to the maintenance of human safety or to
sustainable development;
403
The description in the updated RBMP concerning the power plant canal did not
provide for a derogation under Article 4(4) WFD.
On the other hand, it was indicated that the body of water which receives spent
cooling water, and which constitutes a separate body of surface water, was subject to
monitoring. It was determined that its ecological status/potential was “moderate” and
its chemical status was “good”, but the current status of the body of surface water was
found to be “bad”. The river had the status of a heavily modified water body. However,
in the “assessment of the risk of failing to achieve environmental objectives” column,
it was stated that it was “not at risk”. For the river, derogation (4(4)-1) included in
the RBMP in force was repeated: “in connection with the fact that it directly receives
spent CHP cooling waters, the water in the river has an elevated temperature which
prevents the achievement of a status which would enable the water to be classified as
a useful habitat for cyprinids. The impact of saline waters of the Vistula River”. The
description in the updated RBMP concerning the river in question did not provide
for derogations under Article 4(4) or under Article 4(7) WFD.
20.3.3 Analysis of Possible Derogations
It should be emphasised that in the case of derogations under Article 4(4), the
extension of the deadline and indication of the reasons for the derogation should
be specifically set out and explained in the RBMP. This means that the updated
RBMP should include information on one of the three conditions for the application
of the derogation, i.e. whether the derogation was introduced due to:
a. The lack of technical feasibility of achieving good water status promptly;
b. The disproportionate costs of achieving good water status promptly;
c. Natural conditions.
Similarly, the updated RBMP should include a justification for the derogation
under Article 4(7) where it is the result of new sustainable human development
activities. Such new activities include any investment projects, including a water
permit for the use of water or for wastewater disposal. This derogation is acceptable
where:
(a) “All practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of
the body of water;
(b) The reasons for those modifications or alterations are specifically set out and
explained in the river basin management plan;
(c) The reasons for those modifications or alterations are of overriding public
interest and/or the benefits to the environment and to society of achieving the
environmental objectives are outweighed by the benefits of the new modifications or alterations to human health, to the maintenance of human safety or to
sustainable development;