Dandelions, cotton balls and swimming pools – what do they have in common? They are all terms used by Australian experts to explain science to the public. A scientific concept such as density might be explained by comparing, say, a piece of glass with a snow-flake. A description of water management might invoke a drop of a dangerous substance in an Olympic-size swimming pool.
Landowners who receive a clean-up notice should review it for both liability and the remedial actions required.
Can a landowner be required to clean up legacy contamination? A recent decision of the Queensland Planning and Environment Court provides essential lessons to demonstrate why this may not always be the case.
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are toxic synthetic chemicals known to have potential health and environmental impacts. PFAS are highly resistant to degradation and are very mobile. They are also ubiquitous because of their use in common industrial products such as firefighting foams and nonstick coatings.
Since the 1970s, legislation and regulations have been progressively developed and more stringently implemented in Australia to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of land and water contamination. Little research on the consequences of these actions and the extent of the impact on remediation efforts exists in Australia.
CRC CARE is developing a National Remediation Framework (NRF) for remediating and managing contaminated sites. The NRF is designed to harmonise guidance and best practice in the remediation and management of contaminated sites in Australia, and builds on existing best practice and regulation.
In 2012, CRC CARE identified and prioritised contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) for contaminated site assessment, management and remediation.
