The general environmental duty and duty to manage contaminated land require you to eliminate or otherwise reduce risks of harm 'so far as reasonably practicable'.
For these duties, 'so far as reasonably practicable' requires you to consider:
- the likelihood of harm occurring
- the degree of harm that could occur
- what you know, or ought reasonably to know, about:
- the harm or risks of harm
- ways of eliminating or reducing those risks
- the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or reduce those risks
- the cost to eliminate or reduce those risks.
Harm is any adverse impact on the environment, of any degree or duration. It includes impacts that add up over time (cumulative impacts).
For common risks or harms, to show you've acted 'so far as reasonably practicable' might be to:
- adopt well-established and effective controls to eliminate or manage risk
- assess and adopt effective controls if well-established controls do not exist.
For information about 'reasonably practicable' for the duty to take action to respond to harm caused by a pollution incident, visit Responding to harm caused by pollution.
Consider likelihood and degree of harm
You're expected to know:
- the chance that harm will occur from your activities or land contamination (likelihood)
- the degree of harm that could result (consequence).
The greater the likelihood, the greater its importance when working out what's reasonably practicable.
You can understand the likelihood by considering:
- how often the activity that creates the risk takes place
- whether the harm has occurred before on your site
- whether the harm has commonly occurred on other sites
- information from suppliers or manufacturers.
The consequence is more important in especially sensitive environments – for example, if your site is close to neighbours or a creek. However, you must consider all levels of possible harm to human health or the environment.
To learn how to determine the likelihood and consequence of harm, visit Risk management approach.
What you should know - your state of knowledge
You're expected to:
- know about the impact of your activities or contamination
- know how to eliminate or reduce your risks of harm
- regularly seek up-to-date knowledge about your risks of harm.
This is because the test of 'so far as reasonably practicable' is assessed against:
- what you actually know
- what someone in your circumstances should reasonably know about the risks.
These 2 criteria together are the 'state of knowledge'.
You're expected to stay up-to-date with the latest information and industry knowledge about:
- the risks of your activities or contamination
- controls that manage these risks.
Reviewing your knowledge and controls regularly is important because:
- the more you know about a potential risk, the more able you're to manage it
- your environmental risks can change over time
- reputable industry knowledge, guidance and science-based information changes over time, as we learn and understand more
- technology changes over time, which means more acceptable or effective controls may be available.
Use a variety of sources of information
Source and understand information from:
- your own business
- business and industry
- EPA, regulators and government
- independent organisations.
Business and industry
Sources of information include:
- contracts between parties
- documents showing how to perform activities safely
- guidance from industry bodies
- manuals
- safety data, instructions and labels
- training on equipment use.
Regulators and government
Some government authorities provide guidance material and technical notes – for example, Sustainability Victoria(opens in a new window) and WorkSafe Victoria(opens in a new window).
We provide industry guidance and information for different industries.
Independent organisations
Sources of information include:
- non-government organisations – for example, Standards Australia(opens in a new window)
- universities
- environmental engineers and consultants.
Eliminate and reduce risks
Always eliminate risks where possible. Eliminating risk is the most effective control.
When you cannot eliminate risk, reduce risk using proportionate controls.
Use the hierarchy of controls to guide the controls you choose, such as engineering or administrative controls.
Proportionate controls are the most suitable controls available to eliminate or minimise the harm. A proportionate control:
- is effective in preventing or mitigating the risk
- can be implemented in the circumstances
- does not introduce new and higher risks.
You may need a combination of controls to be proportionate.
Examples of proportionate controls for lower risks of pollution are:
- only using stormwater drains for water
- not washing cars over stormwater drains
- training staff in responsible waste management
- keeping yards and workplaces clean and free from waste
- disposing of waste in the right way
- recycling paper, cardboard, glass and plastics
- minimising wastewater
- switching off equipment at night to reduce energy and minimise noise.
Examples of proportionate controls for lower-risk contaminated soil are:
- covering it with clean topsoil
- fencing off contaminated areas
- paving contaminated areas.
For information on selecting proportionate controls, visit Risk management process.
You must consider the cost of a control against the reduction it could achieve. The most effective solution to control the risk won’t always be the most expensive. Likewise, a cheaper solution may not be the most effective available. For example, installing engineering controls may be costly but justified where:
- they significantly reduce risks
- administrative controls like training will not work well.
Over time, controls that dom't need regular updating can cost less than those that do. For example, regular training and audits can end up costing more than an engineered solution.
Low risks may not need costly solutions. A solution to manage risk may be considered reasonably practicable if:
- its cost is proportionate to the risk of harm
- control of the risk cannot be improved by implementing more costly solutions.
Examples
Meeting the general environment duty
Ahmed manages an automotive repair shop where they change engine oil in the cars they service.
Identify hazards
They store both new (unused) and waste (used) engine oils onsite, near a drain inlet and where cars park. Staff frequently move cars around this storage area and carry oil past the stormwater inlet.
Assess risk
Ahmed knows there's a good chance (likelihood) that oil can spill because of:
- the frequency with which it is handled
- vehicle impact from cars moving around.
Ahmed considers the degree of harm (consequence). He's aware that:
- the waste oil contains heavy metals and hydrocarbons which harm humans, plants and animals, including fish
- a spill that enters the stormwater inlet may harm the waterways and fish life
- a leak or spill could harm his staff or the community near his worksite.
Consider if the hazard can be eliminated
Ahmed does not feel that it's reasonably practicable to eliminate oil storage or reduce the amount that's stored. Instead, he considers what controls he can implement that will reduce the risks so far as reasonably practicable.
Find a reasonably practicable solution
Ahmed investigates what controls are available by:
- discussing his activities with his suppliers
- researching commercially available spill prevention solutions
- looking at new processes
- looking at the layout of his site
- talking to his staff.
He then considers what controls are suitable for his site by investigating:
- how the controls work
- the adjustments to his site or process they would need
- how effectively they would manage the risks.
He considers if potential controls create new hazards – for example, if the available spill kits are compatible with flammable engine oil.
Ahmed's final solution is a mixture of infrastructure, training and work practices. He:
- constructs a bund to protect the stormwater drain if oil is spilt
- installs a spill kit
- installs a high-visibility barrier to warn staff and protect the oil from vehicle collision
- implements a new work procedure for how to handle oil between the storage area and the workshop
- implements a new work procedure for vehicle movements near the storage area
- trains his staff on the new infrastructure, spill equipment and work procedures.
Meeting the duty to manage contaminated land
Ju-Lin is the environment manager for a Victorian chemical company. She identifies one of the company’s sites where contamination is likely. This is based on an assessment the company conducted before purchase. Old site records showed several large spills had occurred. There's no evidence these were cleaned up, so she suspects contamination.
Ju-Lin concludes that eliminating the risk is not reasonably practicable. She bases this conclusion on:
- the level of risk posed by the likely contamination
- the location of the likely contamination in relation to established infrastructure.
Ju-Lin looks at how the risks of harm could be reduced so far as reasonably practicable. This includes:
- onsite treatment of the soil
- concrete paving to minimise access where the contamination is low.
She prepares a site management plan. The plan establishes policies, procedures, and training. The plan details they must manage contamination risks on the site.
She informs the company’s CEO and executives how the company can meet its duty to manage the contaminated land.
All this information can be shared with any future occupant or owner of the site.
Updated