Is All Excavated Soil “Waste”? Navigating the WRR Act and EP Act in Queensland
- Christian Atkinson
- Sep 4
- 3 min read
In Queensland, the movement of excavated soil—especially clean or low-risk material—between lots within a development footprint raises a complex regulatory question: must all such soil be treated as “waste” under the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act (WRR Act), or are there lawful alternatives that avoid triggering waste classification and levy obligations?
This discussion is particularly relevant for large-scale earthworks projects where clean soil is reused across multiple lots. The current position under WRR Act s 8AA is that excavated soil leaving the registered lot of origin is generally treated as “waste” if it is surplus or unwanted—even if it is clean. Operational Works approvals do not change this status.
Two Distinct but Related Frameworks
Understanding the regulatory treatment of soil in Queensland requires navigating two separate but interconnected frameworks:
1. The Waste Framework (WRR Act)
This framework governs how materials are classified and managed once they are deemed surplus, unwanted, or removed from their place of origin. Under the WRR Act:
Excavated soil is considered waste if it is no longer required at the source site.
Even clean earth becomes waste once it leaves the originating lot, unless it is supplied under an End-of-Waste (EOW) approval or DETSI confirms otherwise.
Waste levy obligations apply only if the soil is delivered to a leviable waste disposal site—typically a landfill or recycler operating under ERA60 under the EP Act.
2. The Contaminated Land Framework (EP Act)
This framework determines whether land is contaminated and whether soil removal requires additional controls:
Soil is considered contaminated if it contains hazardous contaminants at levels that pose a risk to human health or the environment.
If the land is listed on the Environmental Management Register (EMR) or Contaminated Land Register (CLR), a Soil Disposal Permit (SDP) is required to remove contaminated soil.
Clean earth, as defined in the Environmental Protection Regulation 2019, is not contaminated and does not require an SDP.
Soil that is not clean, but also not contaminated enough to trigger EMR/CLR listing, falls into a grey zone—it may still be classified as waste under the WRR Act but does not require an SDP.
Three Soil Categories: Understanding the Distinctions
1. Contaminated Soil (Requires a Soil Disposal Permit)
“You need a disposal permit to remove contaminated soil for treatment or disposal from land listed on the EMR or CLR.” — Queensland Government
This applies when hazardous contaminants are present and the land is formally listed.
2. Clean Earth (Defined in Legislation)
“Any natural substance found in the earth that is not contaminated with waste or a hazardous contaminant.”Examples: clay, gravel, loam, rock, sand, soil.
Clean earth does not require an SDP but may still be classified as waste under the WRR Act once moved off-site.
3. Soil That Is Not “Clean Earth” but Also Not “Contaminated Land”
This includes soil with minor contamination that does not meet EP Act thresholds for hazardous contamination. It:
Does not trigger EMR/CLR listing.
Does not require an SDP.
May still be classified as waste under the WRR Act.
Waste Levy Clarification
The waste levy only applies at leviable waste disposal sites—licensed facilities operating under ERA60. Soil reused on-site or moved to non-levyable locations may avoid levy costs, even if technically classified as waste.
Discussion Points for Industry and Regulators
Should clean soil moved within a single development footprint be exempt from waste classification?
Is there a need for a new EOW code specifically for clean earth?
Could DETSI provide clearer written guidance or exemptions for intra-project soil movements?
How can the regulatory framework better support environmentally responsible reuse of clean soil?
This topic invites input from contaminated land professionals, developers, and regulators. If you’ve faced similar challenges or found practical solutions, we encourage you to share your experience and help shape the conversation.
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