 |
General questionnaires on Contaminated Land Management in EU Member States |
Close window X | ||||||||||||||||||
LEGAL FRAMEWORK |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
MAP and QUESTIONNAIRE
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LITHUANIA
(PDF version - 26 KB) - DATE: September 11, 2009
LI |
OVERALL CONTEXTContact for further information in Lithuania:
- Kestutis Kadunas:
LI |
1. Does your national policy have a specific definition of “potentially contaminated site”, “contaminated site”, “contaminated soil”? If yes, please provide the definition.
“Site contaminated by chemical substances” – site where in soil and (or) groundwater concentration of chemical substances exceed threshold value specified in annex 3 (not official translation).
2. Is Groundwater considered as part of the soil in your national policy on contaminated land?
Yes.
3. If you have a definition for following items, please provide the definition:
a. Brownfield?
No.
LEGAL FRAMEWOKb. Sediment?
No for inland waters, only see port sediments are regulated.
LI |
4. Legislation with respect to contaminated land management:
a. If your country has legislation on contaminated land management, please precise if it’s a specific or a common legislation.
Ministerial order”s regulating remediation (or other measures) if environment contaminated by chemical substances.
b. If there is no legislation, please precise how you tackle the problem.
c. What are the main policy objectives?Reduce threat to human and environment.
d. What are the principles on which the national policy is based? (I.e. risk based approach, remediation on a fit for use principle, etc).
Fit for use including risk assessment procedures.
5. Liability for the management of contaminated land?
a. What is the chain of liability? (Polluter? Land owner? Last operator? Occupier?)
All, depending on circumstances.
b. If there is a difference between new and historic contamination, please precise?
No.
c. Can a responsible party pass on the liability to a purchaser? (Under statutory law? Contractually?)
Not described in legislation.
d. Is liability on environmental damage extinguished when clean up of the site is completed?
Not described in legislation.
6. Are there any specifications at regional / local level? If yes, provide some detail.
Only national legislation.
7. Are there specifications for site closure? If yes, provide some detail (I.e. remediation on a risk based approach, for a specific land use …).
8. Is there any legal requirement to conduct investigation for potential contamination in the transfer of property? If yes, provide some detail.
If yes, provide some detail. Yes. Sites which are regulated under IPPC, sites where specific activity in which dangerous substances were used, but activity closed, etc. If your national policy has any kind of inventories, please precise which sites are registered and if the databases are public. Yes landfills, water treatment plants, vehicle repair stations of former collective farms, boiler houses, petrol stations, car wash houses, garages, slaughterhouses and breweries, chemical storages, storages and reservoirs of other different purposes, cattle breeding objects, etc. For Public available only general information on www.lgt.lt
9. If your national policy has any kind of inventories, please precise which sites are registered and if the databases are public.
10. What are the strong, weak points and the major bottlenecks with respect to the current legislation in your country?
To adopt directive on soil and groundwater protection.
TECHNICAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK11. What could/should be highlighted at the European level to improve the current legislation/policy? (cf. discussions around the proposal of Soil Framework Directive – proposal 7643/09)
Yes.
LI |
12. Are there site investigation requirements?
13. Are Risk Assessment & Management the main tools?
14. Technical approaches used:
a. Are there specific technical approaches used for assessing risks and/or setting environmental quality objectives for the protection of Human Health (HH), Ecosystems, Groundwater (GW), Surface waters (SW)?
b. Are other damages considered? (I.e. to buildings, infrastructures….)
No.
c. Are technical approaches used on a site by site specific approach, or by derivation of guideline values?
Generally guideline values which are corrected according site specific conditions.
d. Do you take into consideration others sources of pollution in the risk assessment? (I.e. air pollution, high background levels…).
No air pollution, high background levels – not the case for LT.
15. If the national policy uses guideline values, please precise the following points:
a. Reasons for derivation of generic values (i.e. simplification of implementation, harmonised approach at national/regional level, etc)
Harmonisation of contaminated sites management
b. Objectives / levels of implementation (investigation, risk assessment, remediation)
Applied in investigation and decision for remediation or other measures.
c. Priority substances
Yes.
d. Protocols of derivation (pathways and targets taken into consideration, equations …)
Based on national background values (metals) and experience of other countries.
16. Remediation:
a. What are the drivers for remediation?
b. To what level is clean-up required? (i.e. acceptable risk, land use values, …)
Land use values.
c. Does your national policy use cost-benefits analysis for the choice of the remedial solution?
Partly, depending on media to be remediated, soil – always, groundwater – depending on cost and receptors under the threat.
17. Remediation techniques:
a. Which are the main remediation techniques used?
Bioremediation, pump and treat, vacuum abstraction, etc.
b. Is natural attenuation considered as a remediation technique?
Yes.
c. What is the distribution of the applied techniques?
ND.
d. What is the evolution in time of the distribution of the use of techniques in your country? more innovative techniques now, less dumping
More innovative techniques now, less dumping.
SPECIFIC ISSUESe. How is the acceptance of innovative treatment techniques?
LI |
18. Funding issues:
a. Are there specific practices with respect to “Orphan sites”? If yes, please provide some details.
Remediation of Orphan sites, which land belongs to state can be financed from national+EC funds.
b. Are there alternatives financing solutions (I.e. grants, subsidies …) for non-orphan sites?
Yes national+land owner+ EC funds.
19. Annual budget allocated to Soil Contamination Management:
a. What is the annual budget?
ND.
b. How is it divided between public, private and others?
c. How is it divided between the different steps of management (investigation, remediation, monitoring…)?
20. Is there a specific approach for (if yes, please provide some details):
a. Brownfields?
No.
b. Megasites?
No.
c. Excavated soils?
Excavated ant to specific level from oil products treated soils can be used in landfills.
d. Sediments?
Only for sea port and dumping.
CRUCIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FUTURE21. Does your national policy include any accreditation system for consultants or service providers? If yes, please provide some details.
“Investigators” are accreditated by Geological Survey of Lithuania. “remediators” are accreditated by the Ministry of Environment.
LI |
REFERENCESAre there any additional issues to be further developed in the following months/years?
Will depend on SFD and changes in IPPC directive.
LI |
Please give most important references (documents, website, projects, and case studies) that could be relevant for explaining your national approach
1. Order of the Minister of Environment regarding Environmental requirements for sites contaminated by chemical substances (State Gazette, 2008, No.53-1987)
2. Order of the Director of Geological Survey (GSL) regarding collection of information and inventory of discharge of dangerous substances into groundwater (State Gazette, 2003, No.17-770)
3. Order of the Director of Geological Survey regarding Regulation of environmental (geology) investigations (State Gazette, 2008, No.71-2759 )
4. Order of the Director of Geological Survey regarding groundwater monitoring of economic entities (State Gazette, 2003, No.101-4578)
 |
www.commonforum.eu |