Risk vs. Record: Understanding Contaminated Land Assessment in Queensland

Contaminated land management in Queensland is shaped by two distinct frameworks: the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPM) and the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (QLD), which governs the Environmental Management Register (EMR) and Contaminated Land Register (CLR).

While both aim to protect human health and the environment, they serve fundamentally different purposes.

NEPM: Risk-Based Assessment for Land Use Suitability

The NEPM provides a nationally consistent, risk-based framework for assessing whether land is suitable for a defined use. It focuses on:

• Health and ecological risk assessments

• Investigation levels for contaminants

• Assessment tailored to specific land use scenarios (e.g. residential, commercial, recreational)

Importantly, NEPM assessments are scenario-dependent. A site may be considered suitable for industrial use but pose unacceptable risks for childcare or residential use. The risk is not inherent to the land itself, but to the land use context.

EP Act (QLD): Registers for Recording Land Status

Queensland’s EP Act defines contaminated land as land where a hazardous contaminant

“A contaminant, other than an item of explosive ordnance, that, if improperly treated, stored, disposed of or otherwise managed, is likely to cause serious or material environmental harm.”(Source: EP Act Schedule 4)

is present at a concentration that is causing, or is likely to cause, serious or material environmental harm.

These terms are legally defined and form the basis for recording land on:

• The EMR – for land that is, or may be, contaminated due to a notifiable activity or where an investigation has identified hazardous contaminants.

• The CLR – for land that is confirmed to be contaminated land that requires remediation.

Unlike NEPM, the EMR/CLR system is not a risk assessment tool. It is an administrative and public record that serves several critical functions:

• It maintains a traceable history of contaminated land and land use.

• It informs landowners, developers, and regulators about contamination risks.

• It supports planning decisions and environmental protection.

Why the EMR/CLR Matters

The EMR/CLR system is unique to Queensland and offers significant benefits:

• It is publicly searchable, giving transparency to landowners, buyers, and planners.

• It ensures that hazardous contaminants are not forgotten, even if land is deemed suitable for a particular use.

• It provides a record of land suitability, including any site suitability statements issued after assessment.

This is especially important because risk assessments are scenario-specific. If land is removed from the EMR/CLR based solely on a risk assessment for one land use, it may overlook the fact that the same land could pose unacceptable risks under a different use. For example, soil contaminated with a hazardous substance may be moved to a site with more sensitive uses, such as childcare or residential, creating new risks.

Maintaining the integrity of the EMR ensures that land use scenarios are managed knowledgeably, and that hazardous contaminants are not inadvertently reintroduced into sensitive environments.

Final Thoughts

In summary:

• The NEPM is about assessing land suitability using a risk-based approach.

• The EMR/CLR land registers are about recording land status for regulatory, planning, and public awareness purposes.

• Queensland’s register system is a valuable safeguard that complements risk-based assessment by ensuring long-term accountability and transparency.

Understanding this distinction is essential for consultants, developers, and landowners working within Queensland’s environmental planning system.

⚠️ Responsibility Matters

Suitably qualified persons under the EP Act should not be hasty or cavalier in recommending the removal of land from the EMR. They must ask themselves:

“Is this contaminated land? That is—does it contain a hazardous contaminant that could cause serious or material environmental harm in any reasonably likely land use scenario or activity, including the movement of soil or water on or off the land?”

Risk assessments are inherently scenario-based—they evaluate contamination in the context of a specific land use. But land use can change. Soil containing hazardous contaminants may be moved to a site with more sensitive uses, where risks become unacceptable.

Assessment of what is reasonably likely must be evidence-based and not biased toward the interests of the current landowner. The EMR provides a critical safeguard by maintaining a public record of contamination and land suitability, helping ensure that future decisions are made with full knowledge of the site’s history and risks.

#ContaminationSimplified #ContaminatedLandAssessment#ContaminatedLandRisk

---

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.