Victoria’s general environmental duty, and what “reasonably practicable” asks

Who it applies to

The duty is wide. EPA Victoria’s page names who is covered: “Households and businesses – anyone doing any activity that creates a risk to human health and the environment from waste or pollution.”

EPA Victoria draws one difference between them. Following a risk management process will help businesses to manage risk, while households do not need to follow one but can use it as a framework. EPA Victoria adds that “There are significant penalties if businesses do not meet this duty.”

“Harm” is drawn broadly too: “any adverse impact on the environment, of any degree or duration”, including impacts that add up over time. Households are inside it as well: their risks are usually lower than a business’s, but EPA Victoria says there can be significant harm from households collectively not meeting it.

The Act itself is on the Victorian Legislation site, where the version in force is version 023, effective from 30 June 2026.

The six things the test weighs

The duty’s measure is “so far as reasonably practicable”, and EPA Victoria lists what that test requires a duty holder to consider.

• Likelihood“the likelihood of harm occurring”
• Degree“the degree of harm that could occur”
• Knowledge of the risk“what you know, or ought reasonably to know, about: the harm or risks of harm”
• Methodswhat is known, or ought to be, about “ways of eliminating or reducing those risks”
• Availability“the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or reduce those risks”
• Cost“the cost to eliminate or reduce those risks”

EPA Victoria, Reasonably practicable

How likely, how serious

“The greater the likelihood, the greater its importance when working out what’s reasonably practicable.” EPA Victoria suggests understanding likelihood by considering how often the risky activity takes place, whether the harm has happened before on the site or commonly on other sites, and information from suppliers or manufacturers.

Consequence weighs more where the setting is sensitive, “for example, if your site is close to neighbours or a creek.” But all levels of possible harm still have to be considered.

The “state of knowledge”

The test is measured against two things together: “what you actually know” and “what someone in your circumstances should reasonably know about the risks.” EPA Victoria calls the pair the “state of knowledge”, and expects duty holders to stay up to date, because risks, guidance, science and technology all change over time.

Knowledge can come from the business itself, from EPA and other regulators, and from industry, where EPA Victoria lists contracts, manuals, guidance from industry bodies, safety data, instructions and labels, and training on equipment use. Among outside organisations, EPA Victoria names non-government organisations, universities, and “environmental engineers and consultants”. A consultant’s advice is one of the sources EPA Victoria itself names for building that knowledge.

Choosing controls, in order

1. Eliminate the risk where possible. “Eliminating risk is the most effective control.”
2. Where it cannot be eliminated, reduce it with proportionate controls. A proportionate control is effective, can be put in place in the circumstances, and does not introduce new and higher risks. More than one may be needed.
3. Use the hierarchy of controls to choose them, such as engineering or administrative controls.

Cost counts, in both directions. The cost of a control has to be weighed against the reduction it could achieve, and “The most effective solution to control the risk won’t always be the most expensive.” EPA Victoria also notes that low risks may not need costly solutions, and that engineering controls may be costly but justified where they significantly reduce risks and administrative controls like training will not work well. Over time, it says, controls that don’t need regular updating can cost less than those that do, and training and audits repeated regularly “can end up costing more than an engineered solution”.

Where well-established and effective controls exist for a common risk, adopting them may be how a business shows it has acted so far as reasonably practicable; where they do not, it assesses and adopts effective ones.

When something goes wrong

The general duty is about preventing harm. A separate duty in the same Act, section 32, applies once a leak, spill or escape causes or threatens material harm: it must be reported to EPA Victoria. That duty is set out in reporting a pollution incident. After an incident or a near miss, EPA Victoria’s advice loops back to this page’s subject: check that the controls are working as planned.

NSW handles pollution through licences and a different Act; see NSW environment protection licences.