Give Your Clients What They Need, Not What You Think They Want
- Christian Atkinson
- Oct 8
- 4 min read
Consultants often act with the best of intentions — aiming to reduce costs, save time, and deliver outcomes that benefit their clients. But in contaminated land work, those intentions must be balanced with the responsibility to provide a clear, evidence-based picture of what the landowner actually owns, not just an interpretation based on limited data or assumptions.
High Stakes, High Uncertainty
Mixed fill sites are particularly challenging:
Large volumes and spatial extent lead to high investigation costs and potentially high remediation costs.
Unclear site history and heterogeneous fill make it hard to know what’s buried.
Drilling, single-point sampling and surface inspection are unreliable — you can’t see what’s underground.
A thorough investigation where the fill content is uncertain often means excavation of the fill to ensure all risks are properly assessed. In these cases, the consultant’s role is to inform the landowner of the true nature of the site, not to interpret or assume based on limited evidence. That means applying the sampling design guidelines rigorously and documenting the rationale for any deviation.
Whilst your client may not like the news, they will appreciate the clarity. Remember, the contamination is not your responsibility.Your responsibility is to use your skills and experience to assess the condition of the land and clearly communicate this to the landowner — with whom the risk, responsibility and reward lie.
When Good Intentions Create Risk
In a large mixed fill classification and EMR removal project (~400,000 m³), the SQP explained:
“I never intended to do that [guideline] level of sampling — the costs are too high.”
While well-intentioned, this approach gave the landowner a false impression of what was required. The remediation plan relied on hot spot removal based on a sparse drilling program, far below the sampling density recommended by the guidelines. Additional sampling was proposed only in areas flagged by the preliminary assessment — which lacked the resolution to reliably identify hotspots or confirm that contamination was due to discrete sources.
The initial strategy did not meet guideline requirements and failed to provide a defensible basis for site classification. However, when the guidelines were followed, many of the original hotspots were reclassified through defensible statistical analysis. While investigation costs increased, the remediation requirement decreased, resulting in a more accurate and cost-effective outcome.
This highlights a key point: the landowner owns the issues associated with the land. The SQP’s role is to provide qualified advice, not to reduce visibility or assume responsibility for uncertainty. Helping your client means giving them the full picture — not just a simplified version that fits a perceived need.
Guidelines Are Written the Way They Are for a Reason
"Guidelines are written the way they are for a reason — they generally work!"
Guidance documents — including:
NSW Sampling Guidelines 2022 – Parts 1 & 2: Application and Interpretation
ASC NEPM 2013 – Assessment of Site Contamination
Queensland Auditor’s Handbook for Contaminated Land
are designed to ensure assessments are defensible, transparent, and reliable. They reflect years of experience, regulatory expectations, and lessons learned. Departing from them without a clear, documented rationale introduces risk that may not be immediately visible — but can have serious consequences later.
Risk vs Record: Understanding the EMR
In a recent post Risk vs. Record: Understanding Contaminated Land Assessment in Queensland we discussed the purpose of the Environmental Management Register (EMR) as a State Government record-keeping tool for land that may be contaminated and, where assessed, a record of land use suitability.
Removal from the EMR requires a determination that the land is not contaminated land — not simply that it poses low risk for a current or intended use.
If uncertainty remains regarding the contamination status of the land — for example, due to economic constraints limiting a complete assessment — the land must remain listed on the EMR as potentially contaminated.
Don’t assume responsibility for something that isn’t yours. Your role is to assess and communicate — the risk, responsibility, and reward lie with the landowner, as does the EMR record.
Statutory vs Non-Statutory Work: Same Standards Apply
For statutory SQP functions (as defined under the EP Act), the government’s CLID content requirements explicitly require the use of appropriate guidelines. But even for non-statutory work, the standards should be no different. The risk doesn’t change just because the work isn’t formally submitted.
Don’t assume the risk by assuming you know better than those who wrote the guidance material. Chances are, you don’t.
Final Thought: Provide the Landowner What they Need
Your role as an SQP and consultant is to provide the landowner with what they need — not what you think they want. That means giving them a clear, evidence-based understanding of their land so they can make informed decisions. The economics of a project are broader than your assessment, and the landowner is best placed to weigh cost, risk, and opportunity.
Don’t take on contaminated land risk on their behalf. The risk, responsibility, and reward remain with the landowner. Your professional fee and scope reflects your own risk and reward — so stay within its boundaries.
By following the guidelines:
You help your client make informed, defensible decisions.
You protect your own professional standing.
You avoid assuming liability that isn’t yours to carry.
References
Christian Atkinson is a contaminated land auditor and a suitably qualified person for contaminated land assessment in Queensland with more than 30 years of experience. Any discussion is general and does not consider your specific circumstances. If you are considering acting on any matters discussed, you should seek advice from qualified and experienced professionals.
Comments