Kamay Battery Energy Storage System

I write to express my unequivocal objection to the proposed industrial-scale Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Kurnell. Siting a multi-megawatt BESS on the Kurnell peninsula presents catastrophic, unmitigated risks to human life, emergency service personnel, and fragile surrounding ecosystems. The geographical isolation of Kurnell, combined with the catastrophic nature of lithium-ion thermal runaway fires, renders this site inherently unsafe and completely unsuitable.
Key Grounds of Objection
1. Single Road Evacuation Bottleneck (Captain Cook Drive)
Kurnell is a geographical peninsula serviced by a single access road in and out—Captain Cook Drive.
• In the event of a thermal runaway event, toxic gas cloud release, or catastrophic fire at the BESS facility, thousands of residents would need to be evacuated simultaneously along this single road.
• During bushfire season, Kurnell is already on heightened alert due to surrounding dense bushland. Adding a high-risk battery hazard next to a bushfire zone creates an extreme compound hazard. If Captain Cook Drive is blocked by emergency vehicles, bushfire, or toxic smoke, residents will be trapped without an evacuation route.
2. Thermal Runaway, Uncontrollable Fires, and Toxic Fumes
Lithium-ion BESS fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish. Standard fire response protocols for large-scale BESS fires often mandate letting the battery modules burn out completely over days or weeks due to the extreme risk of reignition and explosive vapor accumulation.
• Toxic Atmospheric Release: A burning BESS releases deadly volumes of Hydrofluoric Acid (HF), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN), and Phosphine gas.
• Lethal Radius: Hydrofluoric acid gas is extremely toxic, highly corrosive, and potentially lethal even at low exposure levels. Given Kurnell’s prevailing coastal wind patterns, a toxic plume would engulf nearby residential homes within minutes, leaving residents no time or path to escape safely.
3. Toxic Runoff and Catastrophic Threat to Quibray Bay & Towra Point
Firefighting tactics for cooling adjacent battery cells require tens of millions of litres of water.
• Water runoff from a BESS fire carries heavy metals (cobalt, nickel, manganese, lithium), highly acidic compounds, and PFAS/fluorinated chemical residue.
• The proposed site is directly adjacent to Quibray Bay Aquatic Reserve and the Ramsar-listed Towra Point Nature Reserve. Any toxic runoff entering this sensitive estuarine environment would cause mass die-offs of aquatic species, devastate critical fish breeding grounds, and permanently poison protected wetland ecosystems.
4. Proximity to Major High-Hazard Fuel Storage Facilities
Kurnell hosts major bulk fuel and petroleum storage facilities storing hundreds of millions of litres of flammable hydrocarbons. Siting an explosive, thermal runaway BESS in close physical proximity to massive fuel storage infrastructure violates basic principles of cumulative risk management under Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 10 (HIPAP 10). A thermal event or shrapnel/explosion at the BESS poses an unacceptable cascade risk to the nearby fuel terminal.
Conclusion
This project poses an existential threat to human life and the environment. The applicant cannot demonstrate that a safe evacuation can be conducted or that toxic runoff can be contained. I urge the Department to reject this application.

I write to lodge a strong objection to the BESS proposal in Kurnell on the grounds of severe environmental degradation and irreversible damage to internationally recognized ecological and historical assets. Kurnell is a national heritage sanctuary and ecological haven; placing heavy, high-hazard utility infrastructure adjacent to protected wetlands and historical sites represents inappropriate land-use planning.
Key Grounds of Objection
1. Destruction of Ramsar-Listed Wetlands and Quibray Bay Aquatic Reserve
The proposed development site lies immediately adjacent to some of the most environmentally sensitive and protected estuarine ecosystems in New South Wales:
• Towra Point Nature Reserve: A wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, providing critical habitat for endangered migratory waterbirds protected under international treaties (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA).
• Quibray Bay Aquatic Reserve: A vital marine breeding habitat featuring seagrass beds, mangroves, and saltmarshes essential to the ecological health of Botany Bay.
• Construction impacts, site clearing, soil disturbance, low-frequency vibrations, heavy heavy-metal runoff, and potential thermal contamination during operational failures pose a direct threat to species that rely on these pristine estuarine zones.
2. Disregard for Cultural Significance and National Heritage ("Birthplace of Australia")
Kurnell holds unmatched historical and cultural significance as the meeting place of First Nations Gweagal people and European arrival—frequently referred to as the birthplace of modern Australia.
• Millions of public dollars have been invested in upgrading Kamay Botany Bay National Park, constructing visitor centers, restoring heritage wharves, and honoring First Nations culture (including the return of the Gweagal Spears).
• Introducing a sprawling, industrial battery installation enclosed by massive security barriers ruins the cultural landscape, degrades tourist amenity, and disrespects the heritage value of Kurnell.
3. Land Contamination, Soil Disturbance, and Hydrology
The land in and around the industrial precinct in Kurnell carries legacy soil and groundwater contamination.
• Ground disturbance associated with civil works, footings, and cabling for heavy BESS architecture risks mobilizing capped toxic contaminants into the water table.
• Given Kurnell’s high coastal water table and vulnerability to low-lying tidal inundation and storm surges, any leaching of contaminants will flow into Botany Bay and Towra Point.
Conclusion
Kurnell is a cultural icon and a sanctuary for vulnerable species. Placing a high-hazard, industrial battery storage facility in this location undermines state and federal investments in environmental and heritage preservation. The project must be refused.

I write to formally register my strong objection to the BESS project in Kurnell based on severe impacts to residential liveability, unacceptable noise levels, and non-compliant spatial setbacks. The proposal places utility-scale industrial equipment dangerously close to suburban homes, treating the surrounding residential community as a buffer zone.
Key Grounds of Objection
1. Grossly Inadequate Spatial Setbacks (130 Metres from Homes)
The closest residential dwelling to the proposed BESS site is approximately 130 metres away.
• International best-practice planning standards and safety guidelines for utility-scale BESS facilities recommend separation distances of several hundred metres to kilometres from sensitive land uses to mitigate thermal explosion, toxic cloud, and acoustic impacts.
• A 130-metre buffer is completely inadequate to protect residents from thermal explosion overpressure, toxic gas dispersion during a fire, or chronic noise exposure.
2. Unacceptable Noise Pollution and Ineffectiveness of 8-Metre Walls
A BESS does not operate silently. It functions continuously via high-powered HVAC cooling units, power conversion systems (PCS), and large transformers that emit continuous, low-frequency hums and tonal vibration 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
• Low-Frequency Noise Penetration: Low-frequency noise (tonal humming below 200 Hz) easily bypasses standard physical barriers and penetrates residential building envelopes, causing sleep disturbance, anxiety, and long-term health degradation.
• Inadequacy of an 8-Metre Acoustic Fence: Proposed 8-metre high sound walls are an acoustic band-aid. Sound waves, particularly low-frequency tonal noise from HVAC and transformer units, readily diffuses over physical walls and reverberates toward homes. An 8-metre fence on three sides fails to suppress acoustic impacts under prevailing wind conditions or temperature inversions.
3. Degradation of Local Amenity and Visual Impact
An 8-metre high physical barrier on three sides, paired with industrial battery enclosures, lightning masts, high-voltage infrastructure, and security fencing, is completely out of character with the suburban and coastal environment of Kurnell.
• It creates a oppressive, prison-like visual boundary right on the doorstep of residential neighbourhoods.
• It negatively impacts local liveability, community well-being, and property values without providing any direct local benefit to Kurnell residents.
Conclusion
Residential homes should not be exposed to 24/7 industrial noise and dangerous proximity to utility-scale energy infrastructure. The proposed 130-metre setback is unacceptable, and an 8-metre fence cannot mitigate the health and acoustic impacts. I urge the consent authority to reject the proposal in its current location.

Submission AGAINST Kamay Battery Energy Storage System

Location: Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell
Applicant: Ausgrid Operator Partnership
Council Area: Sutherland Shire Local Government Area
Application Number: SSD 92494458

As local residents, we strongly object to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System on Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell. Although we support renewable energy initiatives, this proposal is unsuitable for our area because it raises serious safety, heritage, environmental and amenity concerns.

Key Concerns

• Single Access Road and Emergency Risk: Kurnell has only one road in and out; Captain Cook Drive. During a recent fire, this road was closed, leaving vehicles unable to enter or exit the village. This incident highlighted the vulnerability of our community in emergencies. Adding a large scale battery facility on this same route would further compromise safety and evacuation access for residents and emergency services.

• Heritage and Cultural Significance: Kurnell is the birthplace of the nation, where Captain Cook first landed in 1770. The area’s historical and cultural importance must be protected. Industrial expansion of this scale detracts from the heritage landscape and undermines the significance of Kamay Botany Bay National Park.

• Proximity to AMPOL Refinery: The proposed site’s closeness to the AMPOL facility increases cumulative industrial risk. The community has long sought to reduce heavy industrial activity in Kurnell, not expand it. Introducing another high capacity energy installation near existing fuel infrastructure is incompatible with the area’s safety and character.

• Noise and Visual Impact: Battery systems of this magnitude require cooling and transformer equipment that generate constant noise. This will disturb residents and wildlife. The visual bulk of the infrastructure will further erode the natural and coastal character of our peninsula.

• Environmental and Ecological Sensitivity: Kurnell borders Kamay Botany Bay National Park, home to fragile ecosystems and migratory bird habitats. Construction and operation risks; heat, vibration and potential chemical leakage could harm these protected environments.

• Community Amenity and Tourism: Kurnell’s appeal lies in its natural beauty and historical significance. Another industrial facility will diminish tourism potential and the community’s enjoyment of the area.

For these reasons, we strongly oppose the Kamay Battery Energy Storage System proposal. We urge the Department and the Independent Planning Commission to reject this application and instead identify alternative, less intrusive locations for such infrastructure, away from heritage, residential and environmentally sensitive zones.

Kurnell only has one road in/out and any issues or failures with Ausgrids proposed BESS could prove detrimental to the health and safety of the residents of Kurnell. Any issues particularly fire or smoke would close off the road and trap the residents.
Kurnell peninsula is also home to alot of environmentally sensitive areas which would also suffer from any issues with the BESS.
The location is also too close to houses to be deemed safe.
This proposal should not proceed.

​To the Assessment Team,
​I am writing to formally register my strong objection to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System (SSD-92494458) in Kurnell, Sutherland Shire.
​While I support the transition toward renewable energy, the specific site chosen for this 150 MW / 300 MWh facility presents unmanageable risks to community safety, local infrastructure, and environmentally sensitive surrounding habitats.
​My primary reasons for objecting are outlined below:
​1. Fire Safety, Toxic Hazards, and Evacuation Risks
​Peninsula Bottleneck: Kurnell relies on a single arterial route, Captain Cook Drive, for ingress and egress. In the event of a catastrophic thermal runaway incident involving lithium-ion battery banks, toxic smoke plumes could force an evacuation or close this road, trapping residents and emergency personnel.
​Proximity to Hazardous Industrial Infrastructure: The Kurnell peninsula already hosts major fuel storage terminals and energy assets. Placing a grid-scale battery facility in close proximity introduces an unacceptable cumulative hazard risk should a fire spread between sites.
​2. Environmental Impact on Sensitive Wetlands and Waterways
​Ramsar-Listed Wetlands & Botany Bay: Kurnell is bordered by internationally significant ecosystems, including the Towra Point Ramsar wetlands and Kamay Botany Bay National Park.
​Runoff & Contamination: A major industrial incident could generate millions of liters of contaminated firefighting wastewater. I am not satisfied that the proposed on-site containment and stormwater management systems adequately guarantee that toxic runoff will not compromise these protected marine and bird habitats.
​3. Noise Pollution and Loss of Residential Amenity
​Continuous Operational Noise: The continuous operation of inverters, step-up transformers, and heavy-duty HVAC cooling systems generates low-frequency hums and mechanical noise.
​Cumulative Noise Burden: Given the existing industrial background noise in Kurnell, adding 24/7 industrial cooling loads risks degrading the residential peace and mental wellbeing of nearby homes.
​4. Over-Concentration of Heavy Industrial Development
​Kurnell has disproportionately absorbed heavy industrial facilities for Greater Sydney—including the desalination plant, fuel infrastructure, and waste operations.
​Further industrialization under the banner of State Significant Development continues to erode the peninsula's community character, recreational value, and cultural heritage without adequate local infrastructure upgrades or community benefit.
​Conclusion and Request
​The spatial and environmental constraints of the Kurnell peninsula make it an unsuitable location for a facility of this scale. I respectfully request that the Department:
​Refuse the application in its current form; or
​Require an independent, comprehensive cumulative risk assessment regarding fire propagation, hazardous air emissions, and emergency evacuation protocols before any further consideration.
​Thank you for considering this submission.

Proposed development: Construction, operation and decommissioning of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with up to 150 MW maximum power output, 2-hour duration (300 MWh) and ancillary infrastructure
Location: 171–189 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell NSW

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I wish to formally object to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage System at 171–189 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell.

I understand the importance of transitioning to renewable energy and improving the reliability of the electricity network. However, supporting renewable energy does not mean that every proposed battery facility is appropriate for every location. I strongly believe that this particular site is unsuitable for a large-scale Battery Energy Storage System of this size and that the risks to the Kurnell community and surrounding environment have not been adequately justified.

1. The location is fundamentally unsuitable
Kurnell is a geographically constrained peninsula with a limited road network and significant environmentally and culturally sensitive areas.

The proposed BESS would introduce another major industrial use into an area that is already carrying a substantial industrial burden. Kurnell should not continue to be treated as a location where increasingly large-scale industrial infrastructure can be placed simply because suitable land is difficult to find elsewhere.

There needs to be serious consideration of the cumulative impact of industrial development on the Kurnell community, rather than assessing this proposal in isolation.

The NSW planning material itself identifies environmental sensitivity and flood-risk concerns associated with the site and adjoining land. These issues are particularly concerning for infrastructure containing large quantities of batteries and associated electrical equipment.

2. Fire and thermal runaway risks
My greatest concern is the potential for a serious battery fire or thermal runaway event.

A facility capable of storing up to 300 MWh represents a very substantial amount of stored energy. Even if the probability of a major incident is considered low, the consequences of such an event could be significant.

I am particularly concerned about:

thermal runaway and battery fires;
the potential for a fire to involve multiple battery units;
toxic and hazardous smoke and gases;
the difficulties associated with controlling a prolonged battery fire;
the potential need for community evacuation;
the effect of prevailing winds on smoke and airborne contaminants;
contaminated firefighting water entering surrounding land, waterways or sensitive ecosystems; and
the ability of emergency services to safely access and manage a major incident.

The fact that a catastrophic event may be unlikely should not be the only consideration. The consequences of such an event must also be considered, particularly given the location of this proposal.

I believe the community should not be expected to accept significant consequences simply because the likelihood of an incident is described as low.

3. Emergency evacuation and access concerns
Kurnell is a peninsula with limited access and a constrained road network.

This raises serious questions about how residents, workers and visitors would be evacuated if a major battery fire, toxic smoke event, bushfire or other emergency occurred.

An emergency involving the BESS could potentially occur at the same time as another emergency affecting Kurnell. The ability of emergency services to respond while residents are attempting to leave the peninsula needs to be considered under realistic worst-case conditions.

I do not believe it is sufficient to demonstrate that emergency services can theoretically respond. The assessment should demonstrate that a major incident can be managed safely without placing the broader Kurnell community at unacceptable risk.

4. Environmental and ecological concerns
The Kurnell Peninsula contains areas of significant environmental value, including sensitive coastal environments, wetlands and areas associated with Kamay Botany Bay National Park.

The potential for a battery incident, including contaminated firewater, chemical leakage or other pollutants, to affect surrounding waterways and ecosystems is of particular concern.

The proposal should therefore be assessed against a genuine worst-case scenario rather than simply normal operating conditions.

I am concerned that the environmental consequences of a serious incident could extend well beyond the immediate BESS site.

5. Flooding and climate resilience
The site's flood-risk characteristics are another significant concern.

A major electrical energy storage facility containing substantial quantities of batteries and electrical infrastructure must be designed to remain safe under increasingly severe weather conditions.

The assessment should clearly demonstrate:

how the facility will perform during extreme rainfall and flooding;
how floodwater will be prevented from affecting battery and electrical equipment;
how contaminated water would be contained;
what happens if flood conditions coincide with a battery incident;
whether climate-change projections have been adequately incorporated; and
whether the proposed development remains safe over its entire operational life.

The community should not be left with an industrial facility that creates additional environmental risks during extreme weather events.

6. Noise and amenity
I am also concerned about the ongoing noise generated by cooling systems, transformers, inverters and other mechanical and electrical equipment.

Unlike a conventional development that may only generate intermittent noise, a BESS can require cooling and other equipment to operate continuously.

The assessment of noise should consider actual operating conditions, including night-time operation, warm weather when cooling systems may operate more intensively, and cumulative noise from existing industrial activities.

Residents should not have to accept a permanent deterioration in residential amenity because of a project that could potentially be located in a more appropriate industrial or energy precinct.

7. Cumulative impact on Kurnell
This proposal cannot reasonably be considered in isolation.

Kurnell has already accommodated significant industrial and infrastructure development. The community has experienced the impacts associated with major industrial uses for many years.

The NSW Government should consider the cumulative impact of existing and proposed industrial developments on:

community safety;
traffic and emergency access;
air quality;
noise;
environmental values;
waterways and wetlands;
Aboriginal and European heritage;
bushfire and emergency management;
visual amenity; and
the overall liveability of Kurnell.

There is a point at which the cumulative burden placed on one small community becomes unreasonable.

I believe Kurnell has already contributed significantly to Sydney and NSW's industrial and energy infrastructure and should not be expected to absorb another high-risk industrial facility simply because the land is already associated with electricity infrastructure.

8. Aboriginal and historical significance
The Kurnell Peninsula is an area of enormous Aboriginal and Australian historical significance.

Kamay is not simply an industrial location. It is a place of profound cultural and historical importance associated with the first encounters between the Dharawal people and Europeans.

Any further industrialisation of this area must be considered extremely carefully, with proper regard for its cultural landscape and heritage values.

The name "Kamay" should not simply be used to give an industrial development a connection to the area's Aboriginal heritage while the broader cultural landscape continues to experience increasing industrial pressure.

9. Alternatives should be properly considered
I acknowledge that large-scale battery storage will play an important role in Australia's future electricity system.

However, the need for battery storage does not establish that this particular location is appropriate.

I request that genuine alternative locations be considered, particularly locations that:

are further from residential communities;
do not have the same environmental sensitivity;
have better emergency access and evacuation options;
have lower flood risk;
are not adjacent to significant wetlands or national park areas;
have less cumulative industrial pressure; and
can accommodate a large-scale BESS without placing an additional burden on the Kurnell community.
10. Request for refusal
For all of the reasons above, I strongly object to the Kamay Battery Energy Storage System at 171–189 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell.

I respectfully request that the NSW Government refuse SSD-92494458 on the basis that the location is inappropriate for a facility of this scale and that the potential risks and cumulative impacts on the Kurnell community and environment are unacceptable.

I support responsible investment in renewable energy and energy storage. However, renewable energy infrastructure must be located where it can operate safely and responsibly without imposing unacceptable risks on residents, emergency services, environmentally sensitive areas and places of significant cultural heritage.

Kurnell is a community, not simply an industrial site. Its safety, environment, heritage and future should be given equal consideration in this decision.

I strongly urge the Department to reject this proposal.

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage Project.

As a long-term resident of the Kurnell Peninsula, I am extremely concerned about the suitability of locating a large-scale battery energy storage facility in an area that is home to an established residential community and is already required to accommodate significant industrial and fuel-storage infrastructure.

I recognise that battery storage and renewable energy infrastructure will form an important part of Australia’s future energy needs. My objection is not to battery storage technology itself, but to the location of this particular development and the additional risk and industrial burden it would place on the Kurnell community.

Fire and emergency risks

Large battery energy storage systems present specific fire and emergency-management challenges, including the potential for thermal runaway, difficult-to-extinguish battery fires, re-ignition and the release of smoke and potentially hazardous gases.

While these risks may be capable of being managed through engineering and emergency planning, the consequences of a serious incident need to be considered particularly carefully when such infrastructure is proposed near residential areas.

Kurnell already contains substantial fuel and industrial facilities. Council and the relevant authorities should therefore consider not only the risk associated with the battery facility in isolation, but the cumulative risk created by locating additional major energy infrastructure within an area already containing significant hazardous and industrial uses.

Kurnell is a peninsula with limited access

Of particular concern is Kurnell’s geography.

The community is located on a peninsula with limited road access. In the event of a significant fire, hazardous smoke event or other emergency requiring residents to evacuate while emergency services are attempting to enter the area, the limitations of the existing road network could become critical.

Before supporting any development of this nature, Council should require convincing independent evidence that residents can be safely evacuated and emergency services can maintain reliable access under a credible worst-case incident scenario.

Emergency planning should not simply assume that the existing road network will remain available and uncongested.

Cumulative impact on the Kurnell community

Kurnell has already carried a disproportionate share of infrastructure and industrial development for many decades.

The peninsula accommodates fuel-related infrastructure and other industrial activities while also containing an established residential community and environmentally significant areas associated with Kamay Botany Bay.

There must be a point at which the cumulative impact of industrial development on the community becomes a determining planning consideration.

Each new project cannot simply be assessed as though the industrial facilities already surrounding the community do not exist.

Compatibility with the residential community

A large-scale battery storage installation is substantial energy infrastructure. The question Council should be asking is not simply whether the project can technically satisfy minimum planning and safety requirements, but whether this is an appropriate location for such infrastructure in the first place.

Once additional industrial and energy infrastructure is established, it can influence the character and future planning direction of an area for decades.

Kurnell should not progressively become the location for infrastructure that would be considered inappropriate beside residential communities elsewhere in the Sutherland Shire simply because industrial development already exists on the peninsula.

Environmental significance of Kurnell

Kurnell is also a unique part of the Sutherland Shire, with significant environmental, recreational, residential and historical values.

Future development should recognise and protect these qualities rather than progressively increasing the industrial footprint and associated risks surrounding the community.

Request to Council

I respectfully request that Sutherland Shire Council oppose the Kamay Battery Energy Storage Project in its proposed location, or at minimum withhold its support until comprehensive independent assessments have satisfactorily addressed:

• the consequences of battery fire and thermal runaway;
• smoke, toxic gas and contamination risks to nearby residents;
• emergency-service access and community evacuation;
• the interaction between the proposed BESS and existing fuel and industrial facilities;
• the cumulative risk and cumulative industrial impact on Kurnell;
• environmental impacts on the surrounding peninsula and Kamay Botany Bay area; and
• whether a large-scale BESS is an appropriate land use in proximity to an established residential community.

Kurnell residents understand that essential infrastructure must be located somewhere. However, Kurnell should not be expected to continually accept additional potentially hazardous infrastructure simply because previous governments and planning decisions have already concentrated industrial facilities on the peninsula.

Council has a responsibility to consider the long-term safety, amenity and future of the existing community, not merely whether another industrial development can technically be accommodated.

For these reasons, I strongly urge Council to oppose the proposed Kamay Battery Energy Storage Project at this location.

Yours faithfully,

Rob Tindall
Kurnell Resident

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I strongly object to the proposed Ausgrid Kamay Battery Energy Storage System at 171–189 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell.

I want to make it clear that I am not against renewable energy or battery storage. I understand that batteries will play an important role in Australia's future electricity network. My objection is to where this facility is being proposed.

I believe Kurnell is the wrong location for a 150 MW / 300 MWh battery facility, particularly given its proximity to homes, environmentally sensitive areas and the lack of alternative emergency access.

Proximity to residential homes

The proposed battery facility is extremely close to existing residential properties, with homes approximately 110 metres away.

This is a very large industrial battery installation containing numerous battery units, transformers and cooling equipment. Residents should not be expected to live this close to a facility with the potential for thermal runaway, fire, toxic smoke and ongoing industrial noise when more suitable locations are available.

Even if the facility can technically comply with safety or noise standards, that does not necessarily mean it is an appropriate neighbour for an established residential community.

Emergency evacuation and access

My biggest concern is emergency evacuation.

Kurnell is effectively a peninsula, with Captain Cook Drive being the only road in and out of the suburb. If there were a major battery fire or other serious incident that affected Captain Cook Drive, how would the residents of Kurnell safely evacuate?

There is no second road out.

There is no alternative land route.

At the same time, emergency services would need access to the incident while residents could potentially be trying to leave the area.

This needs to be properly addressed before approval, not after an incident occurs.

The question I believe the Government needs to answer is:

What is the evacuation plan for the Kurnell community if a major BESS fire or smoke event makes Captain Cook Drive unsafe or inaccessible?

I do not believe there is an adequate answer to this question.

Environmentally sensitive land

Kurnell is surrounded by some of Sydney's most environmentally significant areas, including Towra Point Nature Reserve, Towra Point Aquatic Reserve, Towra Point wetlands and Kamay Botany Bay National Park.

I understand the battery itself is proposed on an already developed site. However, that does not remove the risk to the surrounding environment.

A major battery fire could require large quantities of water and firefighting substances. Contaminated water, pollutants or stormwater runoff could potentially enter surrounding waterways and environmentally sensitive areas.

The consequences of an incident could therefore extend well beyond the boundary of the proposed development.

Noise

Noise is another significant concern.

The facility will require cooling systems and other mechanical equipment, with cooling fans expected to be a major source of operational noise.

This is not a temporary construction noise issue. It is permanent industrial infrastructure operating in close proximity to homes.

Residents should not have to live with continuous mechanical noise simply because predicted noise levels may technically comply with a particular standard.

Kurnell already carries a significant industrial burden

Kurnell has already carried more than its fair share of industrial infrastructure for the benefit of the wider Sydney community.

Residents have lived alongside major industrial facilities, fuel storage, heavy vehicles and associated risks for decades.

Adding another major piece of industrial infrastructure simply because the existing electricity infrastructure is already there does not make Kurnell the right location.

The fact that a battery can connect conveniently to the existing network should not outweigh public safety, environmental protection and the quality of life of local residents.

There are better locations

If this facility is necessary for Sydney's electricity network, I believe it should be located somewhere with:

- greater separation from residential homes;
- multiple emergency access and evacuation routes;
- greater separation from environmentally sensitive wetlands and waterways;
- less risk to an established residential community; and
- sufficient space to manage a major fire or other emergency.

Renewable energy infrastructure is important, but it still needs to be put in the right place.

Conclusion

I strongly object to SSD-92494458.

My concerns are primarily the:

- close proximity to residential homes;
- lack of a second evacuation route from Kurnell;
- potential fire and thermal runaway risks;
- potential impacts from toxic smoke and contaminated firefighting water;
- proximity to environmentally sensitive areas;
- ongoing operational noise; and
- cumulative industrial burden already placed on the Kurnell community.

I am not asking the Government to stop battery storage or renewable energy projects.

I am asking the Government to find a more appropriate location.

Kurnell already has significant industrial infrastructure and risks. Putting a large-scale battery facility next to homes, beside the only road in and out, and close to some of Sydney's most environmentally sensitive areas is, in my opinion, an unnecessary and unacceptable risk.

I respectfully ask that this proposal be rejected and Ausgrid be required to identify a more suitable location.

Yours sincerely,

Chris menzies

As a local resident and community member, I am writing to formally object to the massive lithium-ion battery storage facilities (BESS) planned for Kurnell. While we support the general shift toward renewable energy, the Kurnell Peninsula is entirely the wrong location for this type of hazardous industrial project. Our home is located only a few hundred meters away from the proposed site. We do not want this in our residential street.

1. Severe Fire and Explosion Risks
- Too Close to Fuel Depots: The proposed battery sites are right next to Australia’s largest operating fuel terminal, which holds roughly 750 million liters of highly flammable fuel and jet fuel. Putting an experimental battery facility next to huge fuel tanks creates an incredibly dangerous situation.
- Chemical Hazards and Battery Fires: Lithium-ion batteries can experience "thermal runaway," causing intense fires that are incredibly hard to put out and release toxic chemical smoke.
- We have already seen major grid-scale battery fires break out globally and locally—including the Geelong battery fire and the Moss Landing incidents. The safety regulations for these mega-batteries simply haven't kept pace with the technology.

2. Evacuation Nightmares
- Only One Way In and Out: The entire Kurnell Peninsula relies on Captain Cook Drive as its single access road.
- Trapped Residents: If a major battery fire or chemical cloud requires an emergency evacuation, residents, workers, and tourists will be trapped. Emergency vehicles trying to get in will be blocked by traffic trying to get out.

3. Threat to Towra Point and Local Waterways
- Damaging Wetlands: The project sites sit right on the edge of the Towra Point Nature Reserve, an internationally protected wetland.
- Toxic Runoff: Fighting a massive battery fire takes millions of liters of water over several days. This highly contaminated firewater risks spilling over into Botany Bay, poisoning local marine life.
- Disturbing Existing Toxins: Previous industrial activity on these sites left behind dangerous legacy contaminants like PFAS, benzene, and asbestos. I am deeply concerned that the construction and digging required for these batteries will disturb these chemicals and leak them into our groundwater.

4. Destruction of Heritage and Community Livability
- Ruining Historic and Cultural Sites: Kurnell is home to Kamay Botany Bay National Park and holds immense Indigenous and national history. Turning the area into a heavy industrial battery zone completely erodes its cultural identity.
- Impact on Homes and Tourism: Families who bought homes here after the old oil refinery closed are now facing unmitigated industrial noise, visual pollution, and a drop in property values, ours included. This is unacceptable. Leave our community alone.

The Geopolitical Risks & Structural Dependencies of this insecure and unsafe Kamay BESS ensure subversion of sovereign industrial capabilities.

By outsourcing critical energy infrastructure components to state-subsidised foreign entities like the hostile CCP, this project undermines Australia’s domestic industrial security.
It creates a dangerous reliance on foreign manufacturing ecosystems that can be restricted during geopolitical tensions.
This reliance contradicts the National Electricity Law (NEL) goal of long-term system security and resilience.

As Lithium-ion battery energy systems rely on highly restricted minerals and components controlled by untrustworthy, foreign monopolies that are seeking to harm and supplant Australia like China is - weaponisation of proprietary component supply chains is a seriously detrimental and unacceptable consequence.

If trade restrictions or political standoffs occur, sourcing replacement cells and technical components will become impossible.
This will leave the $165 million Ausgrid installation stranded and unusable, directly harming consumer price stability.

As the software systems that manage battery cells, thermal controls, and grid connections are typically developed and managed by foreign companies including, predominantly, the Chinese Communist Party - the resulting hidden back doors of vulnerabilities in firmware and system supply chains is the antithesis of energy security and reliability.

As a result, critical parts of the Sutherland Shire power grid will be disastrously exposed to unauthorised remote access or shutdown by foreign actors.

There are seriously treacherous strategic risks to coastal infrastructure by placing a highly integrated, foreign-reliant, incapable battery network on the Kurnell peninsula—close to major fuel storage and desalination infrastructure—creating a centralised target for digital or physical disruption.

This weakness greatly threatens the wider Sydney energy network, failing to meet the NEL’s core safety, security and reliability requirements.

There are totally unacceptable evacuation bottlenecks on Captain Cook Drive.
The Kurnell peninsula relies entirely on Captain Cook Drive as its single route for incoming and outgoing traffic.
If a major battery fire or chemical leak occurs, this single road will face severe gridlock.
This would block fleeing residents while preventing emergency vehicles from reaching the incident, showing a clear failure to protect public safety when Hydrogen Fluoride Gas is lethal☠️ to our lungs!

As Lithium BESS are Toxic Bis-FASI PFAS and Hydrofluoric Acid leaking and Fire disasters - groundwater contamination will be inevitable at Towra Point.
Fighting a lithium-ion battery fire requires massive amounts of water over long periods.
The resulting runoff will contain heavy metals and toxic forever chemical residues.
This contaminated water will seep into the shallow water table of the peninsula, contaminating the sensitive wetlands of the Towra Point Nature Reserve, harming the community and violating the Precautionary Principle.

WE DO NOT NEED MORE AI OR SCUM DATA CENTRES.
Australia is such a beautiful and amazing place to live. It has been proven that the use of data centres is extremely harmful towards the environment, surrounding animals and HUMANS! We have survived as a species for thousands of years before AI and data centres. We can continue to do so without them. I very strongly believe Australia should permanently ban the construction and use of AI data centres in our country. Choose people, plants, water, animals and insects over the ever growing AI SLOP!

I have been a resident of this community since 1972. My family association with this community goes back to the early 1900's when my great grandmother owned land here. My grandmother inherited that land and my parents bought their first house here. I have also been lucky enough to own my home here as well. As such I have seen the growth of the community and its shared existence with industry. Some beneficial and others not so much.
I have serious concerns about the siting of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in this area. Please find my issues listed below

* Operating 24 hours a day the facility will be located directly behind homes and separated by only 200m. The perpetual noise emanating from the batteries will be disruptive to sleep and daily life. Ausgrid's own noise assessment identified the BESS would EXCEED noise criteria. 8 Metre walls will not assist in noise reduction. They will visually pollute the largely natural scenery on that side of Captain Cook Drive.

* Fire Risk is one of the biggest problems associated with lithium batteries. They can be spontaneous and burn to extremely high temperatures and be almost impossible to extinguish. I quote from the NSW State Government Safe Work website (https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/hazards-a-z/lithium-ion-batteries) regarding the dangers of lithium batteries.
Risks of lithium-ion batteries
Fire and explosion hazard - Lithium-ion batteries have the potential to catch fire or explode if not handled, stored, or charged correctly. This can result in property damage, injuries, and even fatalities.
Chemical exposure - Lithium-ion batteries contain chemicals and materials that can be harmful if inhaled or exposed to skin or eyes.
Electrical hazard - Lithium-ion batteries can deliver a significant amount of electrical energy, which can pose a shock hazard if mishandled.
Storage and handling risks - Improper storage and handling of lithium-ion batteries can lead to physical damage, short circuits, and other safety hazards.
Causes of lithium-ion battery failure - If lithium-ion batteries fail, energy is rapidly released which can create fire and explosions. Failing lithium-ion batteries may release highly toxic fumes and secondary ignitions even after the flames have been extinguished.
Thermal runaway - A chain reaction that can lead to overheating, fire, and even explosion. Thermal runaway can be triggered by factors such as overcharging, physical damage, manufacturing defects, or exposure to high temperatures.
Short circuiting - When positive and negative terminals of a lithium-ion battery contact each other, short circuiting can result. This causes a rapid discharge of energy, potentially leading to overheating, fire, or explosion.
Overcharging - Overcharging causes stress on the internal components and leads to thermal runaway.
Physical damage - Physical damage includes puncturing or crushing. This can compromise the integrity of the internal battery components and lead to short circuits, thermal runaway, and other safety hazards.
Manufacturing defects - While rare, manufacturing defects can lead to internal short circuits, thermal runaway, and safety hazards. It's important to purchase batteries from reputable manufacturers to minimize the risk of defects.

* Kurnell’s access to emergency services is dependent on a single access 2 lane road that runs directly past the proposed site of the BESS. Any emergency concerning the BESS would require these services to access the site by driving past it. The same would be for any evacuation plans for the local population. They would be required to drive past the location to leave Kurnell in any extreme evacuation situation. Historically, advice given by Ampol when it was previously a refinery, was to stay indoors and shut windows or evacuation plans were made by removing people by boat from Silver Beach. No reliance could be given to assistance being provided by any firefighters located within the Ampol site as they are required to remain onsite and be only available to AMPOL (as I understand it). Local Volunteer firefighters do not have the equipment nor training, despite how competent they may be, and should not be asked or expected to fight fires of such difficulty. An example would be the recent fire at the Chipping Norton storage facility in June that involved an Ebike company and their stored lithium batteries. It took days to extinguish. And they were only for Ebikes! Given the risk to the local population for delayed access for emergency services I find this proposal disturbing and causing of great anxiety.
* Kurnell is famous for its direct proximity to internationally protected wetlands (RAMSAR). The BESS would be sited directly backing on to Botany Bay which feeds these protected wetlands These sites are the breeding grounds for internationally protected birds who migrate here from the Northern hemisphere. There are also wetlands that directly access the fish breeding grounds and local seagrass fields that are being studied in Botany Bay. Exposure to any chemical runoff or fire debris from smoke and heat would be detrimental to these environments.
All this for a battery storage facility that will provide at best only 2 hours of power for 16000 homes? The last 2 power outages this suburb has experienced were for a minimum of 4 hours and one outage was for 2 days.
Please note my objection to this proposal.

Kamay Battery Energy Storage System
Submission by Mark Speakman, MP for Cronulla, 26 August 2026
1. The Kurnell peninsula is an extraordinarily beautiful and environmentally rich and diverse location, but it has suffered serious environmental impacts since the early 1950s from industrial and other activity.
2. The decommissioning of the oil refinery in 2014, leaving a fuel storage facility, gave the local community hopes of a “renaissance” of the peninsula. The community is now understandably concerned that its hopes will be dashed by adverse aspects of the proposed mega-development (including 4,300 new homes) on the Besmaw site and by the installation of highly flammable Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) next to (in the case of Ampol - SSD-86799993) and nearby (in the case of Ausgrid - SSD-92494458) Australia's largest fuel storage tanks (750 million litres), on the only access road and next to valuable wetlands.
3. The issue is not whether battery energy storage should have a role in the electricity system – it has a key strategic role.
4. Instead, the issues are:
a. whether a 150 MW / 300 MWh BESS can be safely and appropriately accommodated at this specific location, and
b. more broadly, what is the strategic vision for the Kurnell peninsula.
5. Ad hoc, project-by-project assessments of various proposals as they arise should await an overarching plan for the Kurnell peninsula.
6. If, contrary to 5., the Department still proceeds with an assessment of the Kamay proposal (SSD-92494458) in the meantime, that proposal must satisfy a much higher level of site-specific scrutiny than proposals that have been assessed elsewhere, because of its specific setting:
a. Flood exposure: the BESS and hazardous uses must be outside the probable maximum flood (PMF); the assessment must use a year 2100 climate-change horizon and must demonstrate that any mitigation does not transfer flood risk to adjoining land.
b. Coastal/wetland interface: potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on Towra Point Nature Reserve, a Ramsar wetland, including hydrological and ecological integrity.
c. Sensitive species: the Giant Dragonfly as potentially using nearby habitat.
d. Single access route: Captain Cook Drive is the only road access to the Kurnell Peninsula; its level of service must not be impacted up to and including the PMF event.
e. Existing industrial context: the BESS is proposed within an area already containing significant industrial and energy infrastructure. The practical question is whether the combined effects of the existing fuel terminal, the Kamay BESS, the Ampol BESS, future industrial uses, other infrastructure and construction traffic can be managed within the physical and environmental constraints of the peninsula. This must cover hazards, traffic, flooding, noise, water quality and emergency response.
f. Future cumulative development: the proposed Ampol BESS would introduce a much larger 800 MW / 3,800 MWh BESS and staged industrial/energy subdivision within the Kurnell fuel terminal precinct.
7. Assessment and, if approved, the imposition of consent conditions must address the following:
a. In particular, refuse approval if there is any credible risk of fire or thermal runaway reaching the fuel terminal. More generally, address credible worst-case battery failure/fire scenarios, separation distances, emergency response, interaction with surrounding industrial facilities and the consequences of an incident during adverse weather/flood conditions. Before construction of the battery storage facility, require a final Fire Safety Study to the satisfaction of the Planning Secretary and FRNSW, addressing the final battery design, credible worst-case fire propagation, separation, water supply, incident control and site-specific environmental receptors. All approved recommendations must be mandatory.
b. Require a dedicated Firewater Containment and Management Plan which demonstrates containment of the credible worst-case fire response volume, including during flood conditions, with no uncontrolled discharge to Towra Point, Quibray Bay, groundwater or other sensitive receiving environments.
c. Require the BESS, battery pads, critical electrical equipment and hazardous uses to be located outside the PMF without relying on site filling that creates off-site flood impacts.
d. Require modelling of construction traffic, operational access and emergency access, including PMF conditions and credible incidents that affect road availability. Captain Cook Drive's level of service must not be impacted through the PMF.
e. Require a clear assessment of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on Towra Point Nature Reserve and associated wetlands, including hydrology, water quality, sediment, lighting and emergency-response impacts.
f. Require a site-specific Biodiversity Management Plan addressing Giant Dragonfly habitat, Towra Point, hydrology, lighting, stormwater and indirect impacts.
g. Kamay to be assessed together with the Ampol BESS proposal and relevant existing/proposed Kurnell infrastructure. The cumulative assessment should cover hazards, flood behaviour, traffic, noise, stormwater, emergency response and environmental impacts.
h. Require determination of long-term strategic suitability of locating battery infrastructure close to nationally significant fuel assets.
i. Require worst-case charging/discharging noise, night-time noise, tonal/low-frequency characteristics, sleep disturbance, construction noise and cumulative noise with existing and proposed industrial uses.
j. Require independent post-commissioning monitoring at nearest residential receivers, including night-time, maximum cooling-fan operation, tonal/low-frequency characteristics and cumulative industrial noise.
k. Require clear identification of existing contamination and the potential interaction between earthworks, flooding, battery infrastructure, firewater and contaminated soils/groundwater.
l. Require an Emergency Plan before commissioning, prepared in consultation with FRNSW and other relevant emergency agencies, addressing fire, smoke, flooding, PMF conditions, evacuation and emergency access to and from the peninsula.
m. Prohibit installation of equipment materially different from the representative technology identified in the EIS, without further assessment and public consultation.
n. Require an enforceable Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan within three years of commencement, with updates through the project life and before closure, covering battery removal, waste classification, transformer oil, contaminated materials, site restoration and financial responsibility.
o. Require maintained or improved visual amenity on entrance to Kurnell village, with all necessary landscaping or screening.
p. Require independent post-construction verification of critical Kamay controls, particularly noise, stormwater controls, firewater containment, flood protection, noise, biodiversity and emergency response, with results made available to Council and the community.
q. If there is substantial residual risk that cannot be reduced to an acceptable level, refuse approval and consider alternative technically feasible sites with fewer flood, coastal, access and cumulative-risk constraints.

I object to the Kamay BESS on noise impacts alone.

Having reviewed Ausgrid’s own Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, I am extremely concerned that the people living closest to this project are being expected to accept a permanent increase in industrial noise from a facility proposed only around 135–137 metres from the nearest homes.

This is not speculation. It is contained in Ausgrid’s own modelling.

There are 58 residential buildings within 250 metres of the project site. The closest modelled residential receiver, R6 at 28 Tasman Street, is only 137 metres from the project area.
The existing substation noise at R6 is modelled at 38 dB(A) at night.

After the BESS is added, and even after substantial mitigation, Ausgrid predicts R6 will experience approximately 44 dB(A) in the evening and 40 dB(A) at night.

That exceeds Ausgrid’s own project-specific criteria by 1 dB in the evening and 2 dB at night.

In other words, the closest residents are being told that an exceedance is acceptable because Ausgrid considers it “negligible”.

I do not accept that.

These people do not live inside a theoretical acoustic model. They sleep there. They sit in their backyards there. They open their windows there.

More importantly, these results only occur after Ausgrid assumes substantial noise controls.

The unmitigated BESS exceeds the project-specific noise criteria at the majority of assessed receivers, with the greatest exceedances occurring at night. To make the project work acoustically, the assessment has had to:

• reduce the BESS equipment duty cycle to 50% at night; and
• introduce acoustic barriers up to 8 metres high along the eastern, northern and western boundaries.

That should be setting off alarm bells.

If a development only becomes marginally acceptable after restricting its night-time operation and surrounding it with eight-metre acoustic walls, perhaps the problem is not the wall design.

Perhaps the problem is the location.

The modelling also identifies tonal characteristics at some residential receivers. Under the NSW Noise Policy for Industry, tonal, low-frequency or otherwise annoying noise characteristics matter because they can create substantially greater annoyance than an equivalent broadband noise level.

This is particularly important for a BESS because the dominant sources are not occasional events. They include battery cooling systems, inverters and transformers. Ausgrid's modelling uses battery-unit sound power levels of 96 dB(A) at 100% duty cycle, reducing to 88 dB(A) at 50% duty cycle, with transformers also contributing to the acoustic environment.

The comparison with the 150 MW / 300 MWh Muswellbrook BESS is difficult to ignore.

At Muswellbrook, the nearest existing residential receiver assessed was approximately 425 metres away. Its acoustic assessment adopted a 35 dB(A) project-specific night-time amenity level for residential receivers. The project noise trigger was 37 dB(A) LAeq,15min after the required NPfI standardisation.

Kamay is also a 150 MW / 300 MWh BESS.

Yet here, Ausgrid proposes placing it around 137 metres from a home, more than three times closer than Muswellbrook's nearest existing residential receiver, while its own mitigated modelling still predicts 40 dB(A) at night at R6.

How is that an acceptable outcome for Kurnell residents?

There is another issue that should concern the Department. During construction, Ausgrid predicts noise management levels will be exceeded at every assessed residential receiver except R8. At R6, the predicted construction level reaches 66 dB(A) during structural, civil, mechanical and electrical works — 13 dB above the applicable Noise Management Level.

So residents are expected to endure significant construction noise first, followed by a permanent new industrial noise source afterwards.

I am tired of seeing technical reports use words such as “minor”, “negligible” and “acceptable” to dismiss impacts that will actually be experienced by real people.

A 1 or 2 dB exceedance may be described as minor in an assessment report. That does not answer the fundamental planning question:

Why deliberately introduce additional 24-hour industrial noise this close to an established residential community at all?

Noise mitigation should not be used to justify a bad separation distance.

An eight-metre acoustic wall is not a substitute for proper land-use planning.

A 50% night-time operating assumption is not a substitute for proper separation.

And telling the closest neighbours that the remaining exceedance is “negligible” is certainly not a substitute for protecting their residential amenity.

If a 150 MW BESS at Muswellbrook can be located hundreds of metres from existing homes, then Ausgrid can find a location that provides proper separation from Kurnell residents.

Move this facility away from people.

On noise impacts alone, I ask the Department to refuse the Kamay BESS in its proposed location.