MOD 7 Infrastructure consolidation and remediation

As a long time land owner I am writing to express my profound outrage and unreserved condemnation of Ampol's utterly inadequate and frankly contemptuous approach to public notification regarding your proposed MOD 7. This blatant disregard for community safety, environmental integrity, and our shared heritage is not only unacceptable but a clear dereliction of your corporate and social responsibilities.
The notion that a project of this magnitude, with its inherent and undeniable risks, could proceed with such minimal and insufficient public consultation is an insult to the intelligence and well-being of the Kurnell community and the wider region. Ampols’ notification process has been a cynical exercise in box-ticking, designed to obscure rather than inform, and to marginalise the voices of those most directly affected.
The Kurnell Peninsula is a residential area, a vibrant community, and a place people call home. Ampols’ MOD 7 proposal, whatever its technical specifics of which this community has not had adequate time to study, considering the fact that Ampol has had this plan for a number of years now, carries the potential for significant and irreversible impacts on the health, safety, and quality of life of our residents. The lack of transparent, accessible, and timely information has left our community vulnerable, uninformed about potential hazards, emergency protocols, and the long-term implications of your operations.
Environmental Catastrophe Looms for Quibray Bay and Botany Bay:
Quibray Bay and Botany Bay are not merely bodies of water; they are vital, sensitive ecosystems supporting diverse marine life, migratory birds, and critical habitats. They are also recreational hubs cherished by countless individuals. Ampols’ history of industrial activity in this area already places immense pressure on these environments. Any modification, particularly one undertaken with such secrecy, raises immediate and grave concerns about:
● Pollution Risk: The potential for spills, leaks, or discharges of hazardous materials into these delicate estuarine environments is unconscionable. What new pollutants or increased volumes of existing pollutants could result from MOD 7?
● Biodiversity Impact: The cumulative effect of industrial activity, exacerbated by poorly assessed modifications, threatens the fragile balance of marine flora and fauna, including endangered species that rely on these waters.
● Water Quality Degradation: Further industrialisation without stringent oversight and public accountability will inevitably lead to a decline in water quality, impacting recreational use, commercial fishing, and the overall health of the bay.
● Failure of Remediation Obligation: It is imperative to recall that upon the closure of the oil refinery, Ampol was originally obligated to undertake complete remediation of the land, not merely a superficial covering. This commitment is underscored by historical legislative agreements, including the Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act 1954 (No. 34), which established the framework for operations and, by extension, the ultimate environmental responsibility. This historical commitment to environmental restoration must be honoured and not circumvented by new modifications that perpetuate or exacerbate existing contamination. Specifically, we understand that MOD 7 proposes to merely cap the contaminated land, rather than undertaking the thorough and complete remediation that was originally mandated and is environmentally necessary. This approach is unacceptable and represents a profound evasion of your responsibilities.
Our Heritage-Listed Kamay National Park is Under Direct Threat:
Kamay Botany Bay National Park is a site of immense national and international significance. It is the birthplace of modern Australia, a place of profound Indigenous cultural heritage, and a natural sanctuary. To proceed with a project that could jeopardise this irreplaceable asset, without genuine public engagement, is an act of cultural vandalism. We are deeply concerned about:
● Ecological Integrity: The park's unique ecosystems, including its coastal heathlands, wetlands, and marine areas, are intrinsically linked to the health of Botany Bay. Any environmental degradation stemming from MOD 7 will directly impact the park's ecological resilience.
● Heritage Values: The historical and cultural landscape of Kamay, including its Aboriginal heritage sites and the landing place of the First Fleet, must be protected at all costs. Industrial encroachment and environmental risk undermine the very essence of its heritage listing.
● Public Access and Enjoyment: The park is a cherished public space for recreation, education, and contemplation. The potential for increased pollution, noise, or visual impact from your operations diminishes the public's ability to experience and appreciate this vital heritage site.
Be under no illusion: the Kurnell community and its allies will not stand idly by while our homes, our environment, and our heritage are put at risk by corporate expediency and greed by an international corporate company.

To: The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Subject: SSD-5544-Mod-7: AMPOL KURNELL TERMINAL INFRASTRUCTURE CONSOLIDATION AND REMEDIATION

I am writing to express my vehement objection to Ampol's proposed Modification 7 (SSD-5544-Mod-7) for the Kurnell Terminal. This modification, presented as a mere consolidation and remediation effort, utterly fails to address the profound environmental and public health risks posed by Ampol's ongoing operations and its history of documented negligence.

My objections are rooted in a deep concern for our environment, the health of our community, and the transparent accountability of industrial operators. Specifically, I highlight the following critical issues:

1. Egregious Environmental Impact and a History of Neglect:
Ampol's environmental record at the Kurnell Terminal is not one that inspires confidence. The catastrophic fuel leak of April 7, 2022, serves as an undeniable testament to this. Over 9,000 litres of diesel mixed with floodwaters, inundating Captain Cook Drive, Marton Park Wetland, adjoining creeks, and crucially, the mangroves at Quibray Bay, as well as residential properties and public spaces. This was not a minor incident; it was a significant pollution event that led to Ampol being compelled to pay over $700,000 (which was grossly inadequate) in environmental penalties and community projects by the NSW EPA, explicitly for polluting land and water and failing to immediately notify authorities. To suggest this modification will "continue the safe, viable and reliable operation" without a robust and independently verified plan to prevent future such disasters is disingenuous and unacceptable.

2. Unacceptable Destruction of Mangroves:
The 2022 fuel spill directly impacted the vital mangrove ecosystems of Quibray Bay. While Ampol's recent updates attempt to deflect blame for ongoing mangrove defoliation onto freshwater inundation, the fact remains that their past negligence directly contaminated these sensitive habitats. Mangroves are critical nurseries for marine life, provide coastal protection, and act as natural filters. Any further activity that risks these irreplaceable ecosystems, especially from an operator with a proven track record of harming them, is intolerable. The proposed modification must include an explicit, comprehensive, and independently verifiable plan for the protection and restoration of these critical habitats, not merely a continuation of operations that have already caused damage.

3. Grossly Inadequate Public Submission Timeframe:
The allocated timeframe for public submissions on such a significant modification – a mere 23 days (July 10, 2025, to August 1, 2025) – is an affront to community engagement and democratic process. This truncated period is completely insufficient for concerned citizens, environmental groups, and local councils to thoroughly review complex technical documents, understand the full implications of the proposed changes, and prepare well-researched objections. It appears designed to limit meaningful public participation rather than facilitate it, raising serious questions about the transparency and integrity of this assessment process.

4. Dire Health Impacts of Leaving Toxic Chemicals in the Ground:
The proposed "remediation" efforts must be scrutinised with the utmost rigor. The continued presence of residual toxic chemicals, particularly from past spills like the 2022 diesel leak, poses an unacceptable long-term health risk to the Kurnell community. Diesel contains hazardous hydrocarbons, including known carcinogens like benzene. Exposure, whether through inhalation of vapours, skin contact, or contaminated groundwater, can lead to severe health consequences, including central nervous system damage, organ failure (liver, kidney), respiratory issues, and various cancers. Residents experienced immediate symptoms after the 2022 spill. The community cannot and should not bear the burden of living atop a site with potentially persistent, unaddressed chemical contamination. A true remediation must aim for the complete removal or neutralisation of all hazardous substances to levels that are unequivocally safe for human health and the environment, with long-term monitoring and public reporting.

Conclusion:
Given Ampol's documented history of environmental breaches, the clear and present dangers posed by hydrocarbon contamination, the critical importance of the affected ecosystems, and the insulting brevity of the public consultation period, I urge the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to REJECT Ampol's Modification 7.

Any approval of this modification without a comprehensive, independently verified, and publicly transparent plan that genuinely addresses these concerns would be a dereliction of duty to the environment and the health and safety of the Kurnell community.

I demand that the Department prioritise public safety and environmental protection over corporate convenience and ensure that any future proposals from Ampol are subjected to the highest level of scrutiny, with ample opportunity for genuine community input.

SUBMISSION OBJECTING TO MOD 7 APPLICATION

I oppose the new Mod 7 construction for the Kurnell oil refinery.
My resason for opposition is that so much of my Aboriginal heritage and culturally significant lands have already been bulldozed during the original erection of the site in the 1950s.
The refinery has already caused irreparable damage to sites that held deep spiritual and historical meaning for my people, and further expansion will only continue this cycle of destruction. The refinery has been a stain on this sacred land for over 60 years. Their infrastructure is gone. They've made their money. They need to leave, not rebuild.
Many Aboriginal sites have been decimated by Caltex’s oil refinery over the decades. This is not only a matter of heritage preservation but also one of respect for the First Nations peoples whose connection to the land predates industrialization by thousands of years. The refinery’s presence has already taken so much from us—our sacred grounds, our quiet spaces, and our sense of belonging.
On top of the cultural and environmental destruction, local residents are being forced to endure negative impacts that come with operating a massive industrial zone directly next to a residential community. This is not fair, and it’s not sustainable.
We, the residents, deserve to live in a place free from toxic fumes, constanr noise, heavy truck traffic, and the ever-present threat of industrial accidents. We demand that our voices, our heritage, and our community well-being be prioritized over further industrial expansion.
I strongly stand against the Mod 7 construction and call for meaningful consultation and protection of our lands and our people.

Scott Curtis

Dear sir/madame
Iam writing to whole heartily object to Ampols mod 7 with regards to the remediation of the contaminated Ampol site at kurnell.
Common sense dictates that Ampol must be made to fully remediate "THEIR" contaminated site. Failure to do so would leed to contaminates entering local water ways including the protected nearby wetlands as well as the very real possibility of exposure to residents of carcinogenics and heavy metals.
How Ampol think they can just cover/bury this dangerous contaminated site and move on is beyond comprehension.
As a builder myself iam totally responsible for my building sites. Iam forced through penalty of fines or jail time to make sure I have no site run off beyond property boundaries and the proper Removal of ALL harmfull materials such as chemicals and asbestos. If I fail to do this iam liable (as I should be) to be fined or jailed.
How is Ampol not held to the same regard, why do they get a "hall pass" if you will. In a functioning society you can not have a
"one rule for them one rule for us" they all ready got a get out of free jail card when due to total negligence they spilled thousands of litres of fuel into the streets of kurnell a few years back.
In dealing with this matter the local community of kurnell and peoples well being should be looked at as of a greater importance then the balance sheet of a Greedy corporation that doesn't value the local environment or community.
So I beg you please rule against Mod 7 and make Ampol remediate their land that they have contaminated.
Thankyou for your time
Chris menzies

I am writing to formally object to AMPOL’s proposed Modification 7 (MOD 7) for the Kurnell site. My family and I have lived in Kurnell for four generations. Over that time, we have witnessed many changes, but none as dangerous or irresponsible as the MOD 7, proposal currently under review.

The MOD 7 proposal poses a significant and unacceptable risk to public health, local wildlife, and the surrounding environment.

It is important to note that AMPOL previously committed to remediating this land under the Australian Oil Refinery Agreement Act 1954 (No. 34). That agreement clearly states that the company must not create conditions that endanger public health. By failing to meet its remediation obligations, AMPOL is in breach of this Act and is continuing to jeopardise the safety of the Kurnell community.

Over the years, there have been multiple incidents involving toxic spills and hazardous materials—events that AMPOL has failed to adequately manage or remediate. For instance, on 7 April 2022, a major toxic spill occurred due to poor storage management. This incident had serious and lasting effects on both residents and the environment. Alarmingly, a second spill occurred in 2024, indicating that no meaningful improvements have been made to ensure future safety. These are not isolated
mistakes—they are part of an ongoing pattern of negligence.

The community of Kurnell has been exposed to a wide range of toxic chemicals via the air, soil, and waterways, including:

Asbestos (the only chemical acknowledged in AMPOL’s own fact sheet)

Petroleum hydrocarbons, including TRH and BTEXN compounds (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, naphthalene)

PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances)

Heavy metals: arsenic (As), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr)

Pesticides: organochlorine and organophosphorus

Phenols

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Contaminants (VOCs and SVOCs)

These substances are not only harmful to humans, but also to local ecosystems. Of particular concern is Towra Point Nature
Reserve, a protected site home to several threatened species, including:

The Grey-headed Flying-fox
The Magenta Lilly Pilly
The Green and Golden Bell Frog

We have a moral and environmental obligation to protect these species—not to put them at further risk.
As a lifelong resident of Kurnell, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject MOD 7 and require AMPOL to fulfill its original remediation commitments. The land should be restored and returned to the Kurnell community—not further contaminated.

The government has a responsibility to safeguard public health, cultural heritage, and the natural environment. Approving MOD 7 would be a betrayal of that responsibility, placing corporate convenience above community wellbeing.

Please act in the public interest by prioritising the safety of our community and our environment.

Sincerely,

OBJECTION TO AMPOL AUSTRALIA'S SSD-5544-Mod-7 APPLICATION DUE TO THE USE OF SUPERSEDED GUIDELINES AND LEGISLATION
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to Ampol Australia's SSD-5544-Mod-7 application.
My objection is based on serious concerns regarding the consistent reliance on outdated documents across multiple critical assessment areas within the application's Modification Report. This strongly suggests either a lack of due diligence on the part of Ampol or, more concerningly, a deliberate attempt to avoid compliance with more stringent and up-to-date requirements. This is unacceptable for an application of this scale and potential impact. It undermines the integrity of the application and serves to erode the community's trust of Ampol even further.
Allowing an application based on outdated information to proceed would set a dangerous precedent and compromise the environmental, health, and planning outcomes for the Kurnell community and surrounding sensitive ecosystems, including Botany Bay and the Towra Point Ramsar wetland.
I urge you to:
1. Immediately halt the assessment of SSD-5544-Mod-7 until Ampol provides a revised application that exclusively references and applies the most current versions of all relevant guidelines, acts, and legislation.
2. Mandate a complete reassessment of all sections impacted by the use of superseded documents, ensuring that the crucial changes highlighted in the updated versions are fully addressed.
3. Ensure independent verification that all new and updated guidelines, acts, and legislation have been properly applied and addressed in any resubmitted application.
Allowing an application based on outdated information to proceed would set a dangerous precedent and compromise the environmental, health, and planning outcomes for the Kurnell community and surrounding sensitive ecosystems, including Botany Bay and the Towra Point Ramsar wetland.
Upon reviewing the current status of relevant documents in Mod7, it is evident that Ampol's application relies on outdated information for critical assessments. The following specific instances of superseded documents, and their crucial implications for Mod 7 assessment, are particularly concerning:
* Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM Act) - Referenced as 1997 with 2023 amendments (Amended November 2024):
The application's reference to the 2023 amended version of the CLM Act, instead of the November 2024 amendment, is a critical oversight. The current 2024 amendment mandates independent audits for on-site capping and addresses health risks, such as cancer, from uncapped toxins. It also mandates stricter PFAS guidelines.
Important for Mod 7's monitoring of PFAS as it indicates that Ampol's proposed self-monitoring, based on older guidelines, may not adequately address current best practices for site capping, health risks from uncapped toxins, or independent oversight.
* Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) - 2019 (superseded by Version 4.2, August 2024): The reliance on the 2019 version, rather than the August 2024 update, is unacceptable. The updated version integrates updated climate change projections for storm intensity and flood modeling, critical for assessing toxin leaching risks from capping during floods. By using the outdated version, Ampol's application will inevitably underestimate future events in contaminated sites, which can lead to potentially inadequate flood management and containment strategies.
* Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) - Referenced as 1997 with 2023 amendments (Amended March 2025): The failure to incorporate the March 2025 amendments to the POEO Act is highly problematic. These updates enhance pollution incident reporting and water contamination penalties, which are vital for Mod 7's flood/leak threats. Furthermore, they include stricter enforcement on discharges to Ramsar wetlands which is absent in 2023. This omission suggests Ampol's application may not meet current reporting standards, adequately address potential flood/leak impacts, or prevent harm to sensitive Ramsar wetland environments.
* PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP) - 2020 (superseded by Version 3.0, June 2023): The continued use of the 2020 NEMP, rather than Version 3.0 from June 2023, is a significant concern. The updated NEMP tightens PFAS thresholds for health (cancer links) and soil/water cleanup which is crucial for Mod 7's capping of PFAS. Moreover, it notes that 2020 lacks updated bioaccumulation risks in flood-prone areas. This suggests that Ampol's PFAS assessments are likely based on less stringent and incomplete data, posing unacceptable health and environmental risks, especially in flood-prone areas.
* National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) - 2013, and ANZG Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality - 2018 (Amended 2013 (PFAS updates via NEMP 2023) and ANZG 2018 (minor updates 2024) respectively): The reliance on outdated versions of these critical contamination assessment guidelines means Ampol's application likely fails to apply PFAS-specific assessment protocols essential for Mod 7's ‘indefinite monitoring’ and lacks health-based guidelines for leaks which is not detailed in 2013. Similarly, the outdated ANZG guidelines may not incorporate climate-adjusted PFAS limits for wetlands, which is key for Mod 7's bay discharge risks and enhancing protections for Ramsar sites like Towra Point.
* NSW Groundwater Quality Protection Policy - 1995 (superseded by NorBE Guideline updated July 2023): The application's reference to the 1995 policy, instead of the July 2023 NorBE Guideline updates, is a serious omission. The updated NorBE mandates neutral effects on groundwater amid climate change and is critical for Mod 7's capping. This means the application's groundwater assessment may not account for current climate change impacts or ensure the necessary protections for groundwater quality.
* Fisheries Management Act 1994 - Referenced as 1994 with 2023 amendments (Amended July 2024): The failure to incorporate the July 2024 amendments to the Fisheries Management Act is problematic. These updates mandate wetland protections for Ramsar sites, which are relevant for Mod 7's potential bay impacts. The application may therefore not adequately address the potential impacts on local fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.
* Heritage Act 1977 - Referenced as 1977 with 2023 amendments (Amended 2024): The omission of the 2024 amendments to the Heritage Act, which add cultural heritage audits for industrial sites and strengthens Dharawal land assessments, raises concerns about the adequacy of the heritage assessment within the application.
* Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 - Referenced as 2015 (Amended 2024): The use of the 2015 LEP instead of the 2024 amendment, which adds flood-prone land clauses, means the application's planning assessment may not fully address current flood risks and associated planning controls.
I request to be kept informed of the progress of this application and any decisions made regarding my objection.

Sincerely,
Tennille Curtis

As a concerned Kurnell resident, I am writing to express my concerns regarding SSD-5544 Mod 7 for the Ampol Kurnell Terminal. While remediation is necessary, the proposed plans raise serious questions about long-term human health and environmental impacts on our community and the highly sensitive adjacent wetlands and Botany Bay.
________________________________________
1. Critical Concern: Incomplete Contamination Assessment
The Conceptual Remedial Action Plan (RAP, Appendix H, Section 7.1.3) explicitly states significant data gaps, particularly for PFAS and certain hydrocarbon contamination.
Why this matters: Remediation cannot be fully effective if the full extent of contaminants, especially persistent ones like PFAS, is not completely understood. This poses a risk of unaddressed contamination causing future harm.
My Requests:
• Request 1.1: Complete Characterisation: Mandate and verify the completion of all identified data gaps (especially PFAS) before remediation begins.
• Request 1.2: Public Data Access: Make all new site investigation data publicly available.
________________________________________
2. Environmental Impacts: Direct Threat to Sensitive Ecosystems
Kurnell's wetlands and Botany Bay are invaluable ecosystems. My primary environmental concerns are:
• 2.1. Long-term Integrity of On-site Containment (Capping):
o The use of an on-site Asbestos Contaminated Soil (ACS) Containment Cell with capping (RAP, Section 5.1.2) is critical. However, in a dynamic coastal environment, I am concerned about the cap's long-term integrity against erosion and other potential disturbance.
o Concern: If the cap fails, or if contained PFAS is not fully immobilised, contaminants could leach into groundwater and migrate to our sensitive waterways.
• 2.2. Groundwater Contamination & Migration (Hydrocarbons & PFAS):
o Groundwater flows directly towards Botany Bay and wetlands through permeable soils (RAP, Section 4.2.3).
o Concern: Without guaranteed effective, long-term remediation, hydrocarbon plumes and, critically, persistent PFAS from the site could discharge into these aquatic ecosystems. The "limited PFAS data" and the high mobility of PFAS in water present a potentially severe, long-term ecological threat.
• 2.3. Surface Water Runoff:
o Concern: Inadequate management of stormwater during and after remediation could lead to contaminated runoff entering local waterways (SWWF, Appendix I), impacting water quality and aquatic life.
My Requests:
• Request 2.1: Robust Long-term Cap Monitoring: Require a detailed, independently certified plan for the long-term integrity, maintenance, and monitoring (including PFAS migration) of the containment cell.
• Request 2.2: Strict Groundwater Targets & Public Monitoring: Set legally binding, ecologically protective groundwater remediation targets for all PFAS compounds and hydrocarbons. Mandate continuous, long-term groundwater monitoring with publicly accessible data (including sentinel wells near sensitive areas).
• Request 2.3: Verified PFAS Treatment: Demand independent validation of the long-term effectiveness of PFAS stabilization. If insufficient, require proven PFAS destruction methods.
• Request 2.4: Strict Discharge Standards: Enforce stringent water quality standards for all site stormwater discharges.
• Request 2.5: Ecological Monitoring: Implement long-term ecological monitoring programs in adjacent Towra Point and Marton Park wetlands, as well as Botany Bay.
________________________________________
3. Human Health Impacts for Kurnell Residents
My concerns for direct impacts on Kurnell residents include:
• 3.1. Airborne Contaminants (Dust & Vapours):
o Concern: Excavation and handling of contaminated soils risk releasing dust and hazardous vapours (VOCs/NMHCs, potential asbestos fibres from ACS) that can affect residential air quality (AQIA, Appendix N).
o Request 3.1: Implement real-time, continuous, publicly accessible air quality monitoring, both within the site and at site boundaries, with immediate stop-work triggers if limits are exceeded.
________________________________________
4. Transparency regarding operations and impacts
Ampol does not have a history of open and transparent communication with Kurnell residents
• 4.1. Communication with Kurnell residents
o Concern: Past communication has often been reactive, used complicated language, or has been delivered through specific channels that don’t reach all residents.
o Request 4.1: Require Ampol to keep the local community proactively informed of its operations and any potential or detected impacts, ensuring that their messages reach and are understood by all interested or potentially affected community members.
________________________________________
Conclusion: Transparency, Rigour, and Long-Term Protection
I urge the Department to demand comprehensive site characterisation, robust and verified remediation technologies (especially for PFAS), legally binding environmental protection targets and transparent, publicly accessible monitoring data and information. Only with such stringent measures can we ensure the Ampol Kurnell Terminal is truly remediated to protect our community and the invaluable natural heritage of the Kurnell Peninsula for generations.

As a concerned resident and community member, I strongly oppose the approval of Modification 7 at the former Ampol site in Kurnell.

This proposal puts the safety of our families, especially our children, at serious risk. The site contains highly hazardous contaminants, including PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos. These are not just industrial by-products—they are known to cause long-term health problems, particularly in children, whose developing bodies are far more vulnerable to environmental toxins.

Rather than removing these dangerous substances, Ampol is proposing to cap them and leave them in place—right next to our homes, parks, and waterways. This is completely unacceptable. During heavy rainfall, there is a very real risk that these toxins could leach into Botany Bay, nearby wetlands, and even areas where local families swim, fish, and walk. We’ve already seen this happen: on April 7, 2022, hydrocarbons spilled into the community after a rain event, due to Ampol’s failure to properly contain the site.

Our community was promised a full and proper remediation of this land, with the goal of creating green space for public use. That promise has been abandoned. Instead, this proposal aims to rezone the land for permanent industrial use, allowing contamination to remain in the ground, locked behind fences—and leaving the community to bear the risks.

This isn’t just about zoning. It’s about protecting the future of Kurnell’s families. Do we really want our children growing up next to capped toxic waste, instead of parks and safe natural spaces? Do we want to risk the long-term health of our community for the sake of corporate convenience?

Kurnell is home to families, schools, and fragile ecosystems. The nearby Towra Point Nature Reserve and Quibray Bay are also at risk—places that should be preserved for future generations, not sacrificed to more industrial expansion.

The NSW Government must reject Modification 7 and require Ampol to carry out the full cleanup it originally committed to. Our children’s safety, our health, and our environment must come before corporate profit.

I am totally against this Proposal, Kurnell is a small village consisting of young families & elderly residents. The proposed Veolia facility is very close to residents properties, the Kurnell Public School, the Kurnell Preschool & the National Park. I am very concerned about toxic fumes & contamination affecting the air quality & peoples health.
Kurnell is surrounded by the Kamay Botany Bay National Park & wetlands. The proposed Veolia facility could cause contamination to these areas affecting & destroying the protected wildlife.
If there was any type of major incident e.g. toxic spillage or deadly toxic fumes, there is only one road in & out of Kurnell (Captain Cook Drive) which makes it very difficult for any type of emergency evacuation. Also the facility would create a lot more traffic, heavy vehicles, on Captain Cook Drive & the local Kurnell streets.
Kurnell is the birth place of the nation & should be kept the way it is, a residental village instead of turning it into an Industrial Area.
We the people of Kurnell feel we hadn't been consulted or received adequate information regarding this proposal until the last minute,
I feel Veolia should be looking elsewhere for their facility, somewhere not in the middle of a residential area.

I write to strongly oppose MOD 7 as a third-generation Kurnell resident who has raised my children here and is now raising my nine grandchildren in this community. Over my lifetime, we have watched the devastating decline of Botany Bay and the surrounding environment. It is absolutely appalling that this contamination is still being left behind with no genuine commitment to proper remediation.

My family were a fishing family, and my mother vividly remembers Kurnell before Ampol’s refinery. Back then, Botany Bay thrived – it was clean, abundant, and full of life. After Ampol built the refinery, everything changed. The fish began to taste like kerosene, and eventually moved under the refinery wharf. This destroyed local fishing, forcing countless families out of generational livelihoods. Many had no choice but to take jobs at the refinery, and far too many of those workers suffered and died from cancers and illnesses directly linked to exposure to the chemicals emitted by Ampol’s operations.

This is not just history – it is a legacy of neglect that continues to impact our community. The health concerns are real. The environmental destruction is undeniable. And yet Ampol is still seeking to push through MOD 7 without any real accountability for the damage they have caused.

Now, in 2025, we finally have the chance to change course. Botany Bay and the Kurnell Peninsula are treasures that deserve to be restored and protected, not left contaminated for future generations. Allowing this modification to proceed is an insult to our community, our heritage, and our environment.

It is time for Ampol to go. We demand that proper clean-up and full remediation be undertaken. We will hold those who allow this atrocity accountable.

For the health of our community and the future of Botany Bay, I strongly oppose MOD 7.

I would like to say I am so disappointed our village of Kurnell is being subjected to this rubbish. Sutherland Shire Council have not approved this but obviously big business do not take that into account. I have spoken to people at the information sessions at Marton Hall in Kurnell and asked how many refineries in Australia have these batteries stored and really could not get an answer.

- What about the one road in and out, as mentioned in previous submissions, if these batteries catch alight it would almost be impossible to evacuate but the Kurnell community have always been expected to put up with what the rest of the Shire and Sydney cannot! Enough is Enough. I guess if we could not evacuate we would be expected to close our windows and doors and hope for the best! Residents would have to live with this fear of constantly worrying about batteries exploding and I am sure would also have serious concerns regarding the environmental, safety and impact on our community of this proposal.

- I understand the concept of storing energy but this is far too close to homes.

- What about the historical significance of Kurnell (the birthplace of modern Australia). What a beautiful little suburb we live in and I am sure every resident here loves Kurnell as much as I do. This is such a dreadful proposal, surely the Department of Planning and Environment would be considering how this will impact on the residents, I am sure most people would not want this in their suburb.

I implore the department to knock this proposal on the head, we do not want it. I believe MOD7 presents unacceptable risks to public safety and community well-being and would hope the department will explore alternative uses for this site. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

To the NSW Department of Planning,

I am a resident of the Kurnell community, and am writing to formally opposing Ampol's MOD 7 project for its Kurnell site.

As a member of the Kurnell community, I am deeply concerned and alarmed by not only the lack of critical information, but also the misleading content supplied to the community by the MOD7 Factsheet, and the extensively dangerous list of chemical products intended to remain on the site.

Heavy metals such as Arsenic, Nickel, Copper, Mercury, Lead, Zinc, Chromium and others, OCP/OPP pesticides, PFA’s, Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Contaminants, Phenols and Polychlorinated Biphenyls capped on the site pose a severe threat to the health and safety of the residents of Kurnell and the Wider Sutherland Shire, as well as the already endangered and unique flora and fauna that reside in the Peninsular.
Not only do these chemicals, most of which were not outlined pose threat to the rare biodiversity of the Towra Point nature Reserve, that homes fauna such as the Grey-Headed flying-fox and Green and Golden bell Frog, Little Tern and Magenta Lilly Pilly.

These PFA's and heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, PCB’s, pesticides, and many others, have access to wetlands downstream. The Botany Sands Aquifer discharges into the Towra reserve, so contaminated waters from the peninsula will reach the community and the RAMSAR site of Towra Point Nature Reserve, hence proving as a stormwater contaminant.

Furthermore, the impact on Kurnell residents will be detrimental. The residential area of Kurnell Village resides approximately 500m from the site.
The 2022 diesel spill by Ampol creating oil runoff and severe odours, is one such display of how easily contaminated products can reach the community. The ongoing effects of this incident remain evident, with some properties experiencing elevated groundwater levels and swamp conditions.
PFA’s do not break down, and have been linked with elevated cholesterol, impaired kidney function, birth defects and a list of rare cancers.
Research shows that Australians that reside near such sites, have severely higher exposure levels to these conditions. In addition to this, Petroleum hydrocarbons are directly associated with respiratory and nervous system defects, and further prove carcinogenic.
Living near such sites will also understandably cause ongoing stress and uncertainty for residents, who will warrant concerns about the safety of themselves, their animals, and the wider ecosystem surrounding them.

If this MOD7 plan proceeds,it would suggest that economic benefits of the project have been placed above the health and wellbeing of the community.

These contaminants should not merely be capped, they should be fully removed, to avoid any concerns, and ensure the community is safe from emergencies associated with the project.

In addition, Battery Energy Storage System facilities have a known potential for fire risks, and by locating this battery facility next to Ampol's fuel tanks and a capped chemical site near a residential area, raises concerns about fire safety and planning oversight.

Lastly, and potentially most importantly, the Kurnell Peninsular pays great historical significance not only to the colonial history of Australia, but also the Indigenous Community.
For our First Nations People, this land holds a connection to ancestral and spiritual beings and stories. The Kurnell Peninsular serves as a symbol of the unjust beginnings of colonisation, but also the rights of Australia’s Indigenous people.

I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns on this matter,

Thank you,

Kurnell Resident

I am deeply concerned by Ampol’s MOD 7 proposal, which was placed on exhibition from 10 July to just 1 August 2025—barely 3 weeks for a highly technical package. This is entirely insufficient for a community already managing legacy pollution and environmental complexities.
The shift from an active remediation commitment to capping contaminated land under continuous industrial zoning contradicts earlier expectations and leaves long term risks unresolved. Notably, stormwater redirected from ~22 % of the site will flow openly into Quibray Bay, part of the Towra Point Ramsar wetlands—a waterway already impacted by Ampol’s 2022 oily diesel discharge that harmed wetlands, animal life and residents’ health.
These are some of the chemicals that remain on-site after the Refinery closure are
o Asbestos (the only chemical listed in AMPOL's fact sheet)
o Petroleum hydrocarbons comprising:
o Total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH)
o Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and
o naphthalene (BTEXN)
o PFAS
o Heavy metals (As, Ni, Cu, Zn, Pb, Hg, Cd, Cr)
o Arsenic (As)
o Nickel (Ni)
o Copper (Cu)
o Zinc (Zn)
o Lead (Pb)
o Mercury (Hg)
o Cadmium (Cd)
o Chromium (Cr)
o Organochlorine and Organophosphorus (OCP and OPP) Pesticides
o Phenols
o Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
o Volatile Organic Contaminants (VOCs) and Semi Volatile Organic Contaminants (SVOCs)
Given Ampol’s previous failure—with more than 9,000L of oily wastewater escaping into residential streets, Marton Park and nearby wetlands in April 2022, prompting legal action and a $700k enforceable undertaking—I strongly question whether the company’s systems now guarantee against similar or worse events.
I urge the Department to refuse this MOD 7 as it represents a disregard for community health, environmental integrity and future generations in Kurnell. There needs to be changes to the remediation approach. Instead of a full clean up, Ampol proposes capping contaminated land, meaning toxins remain permanently under industrial. This departs from earlier promises and leaves future generations with unresolved contamination risks. The site would not be remediated, not really clean — just hidden. That area could leak dangerous chemicals into the water, wetlands, and homes nearby. It lets Ampol save money, but it’s not fair for the community, especially for kids, old people, wildlife, and anyone who lives or visits Kurnell.
As a long-term resident with three generations currently living in Kurnell I feel enough is enough, it’s time to clean-up Kurnell and stop building dangerous chemical industry here. Lithium battery storage should not be anywhere near tanks of highly inflammable fuel.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification of the Kurnell Refinery (Application Number: SSD-5544-Mod-7) by Ampol Refineries (NSW) Pty Ltd, currently on exhibition until 1 August 2025.

As a resident of the Sutherland Shire and someone who deeply values the environmental and cultural integrity of the Kurnell area, I have serious concerns about the impact of this modification. Kurnell is not just an industrial zone — it is home to ecologically sensitive land, significant Indigenous heritage, and is a gateway to Kamay Botany Bay National Park.

My concerns include:
1. Environmental Risks
The modification involves extensive site works, including removal, relocation, and augmentation of infrastructure, along with grading of the former refinery site. These works pose a risk to nearby wetlands, groundwater systems, and could lead to pollution in Botany Bay, threatening marine life and local biodiversity.
2. Community Impact & Amenity
The proposal does not clearly outline how noise, air pollution, or increased traffic from expanded operations will be managed. Residents of Kurnell and the wider Sutherland Shire already face quality of life impacts from industrial activity in the area. This modification may worsen these issues.
3. Lack of Community Consultation
The Minister for Planning and Public Spaces has not directed a public hearing, despite the scale of the proposed works. Given the long-term significance of this project, I believe a public hearing should be mandatory to allow proper community input and transparency.
4. Cumulative Industrialisation
Kurnell has experienced continual industrial use for decades. Approving further modifications entrenches heavy industry in an area that should be moving toward rehabilitation, sustainable development, and increased public access to natural spaces.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed modification and urge the Independent Planning Commission to reject this application or, at the very least, require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and public hearing.

Sincerely,
Zoe Etcell

We are a couple in our 60s from Caringbah who have loved Kurnell for decades. We have visited regularly for years and watched it transform from an industrial area into a vibrant, family-friendly community. Our own family now lives there, raising small children, and we want them to grow up in a safe, clean environment.

The Mod 7 proposal to cap, rather than remove, asbestos, PFAS, and other toxic contaminants puts that future at risk. With schools, homes, and precious wetlands so close to the site, any contamination or leaching during floods would be devastating.

Kurnell is no longer just an industrial site – it’s a thriving community. We strongly oppose this project and urge you to protect the health of local families and the environment by rejecting Mod 7.

As a resident of Kurnell and a member of a growing young community, I strongly object to the proposed Ampol Mod 7 project.

Kurnell has undergone a huge transformation over the last few years, becoming a thriving, family-oriented suburb with many young families choosing to call it home. Our community is working hard to create a safe, healthy, and enjoyable environment for our children to grow up in. Approving this project puts all of that at risk.

My main objections are:
1. Health & Safety Risks
• The Mod 7 proposal focuses on capping contaminants on-site rather than full removal, leaving asbestos and other toxins such as hydrocarbons, PFAS (linked to cancer), and heavy metals in the ground.
• This is a direct risk to the health of our children, families, and future generations living, schooling, and playing in Kurnell.
• With schools, preschools, and family homes so close to the site, any exposure to these toxins would have devastating long-term impacts.
2. Environmental Concerns
• The site is adjacent to Ramsar-protected Quibray Bay and critical mangrove ecosystems. Leaving contaminants capped instead of removed risks leaching into surrounding wetlands, especially during flooding or storm events, which we know are common in this area.
• This puts local wildlife, marine ecosystems, and the natural heritage of Kamay Botany Bay National Park in danger.
3. Community Impact
• Kurnell has become a hub for young families, with a strong sense of community and a bright future. Allowing this project locks the area into industrial use and sends the wrong message about the value of our community’s wellbeing over corporate cost-cutting.
• We have invested in making Kurnell a safe and enjoyable place to live and raise children. This project threatens to undo that progress.
4. Lack of Transparency & Trust
• The use of misleading images in Ampol’s materials (showing Cronulla instead of Kurnell) undermines community trust.
• The proposal downplays key risks, including PFAS contamination and flood vulnerabilities, raising serious concerns about transparency and long-term accountability.

Our children deserve to grow up in a safe, clean environment, not next to a capped toxic site. Kurnell has a rich cultural heritage and is now a thriving residential area. We want to preserve that, not hand over our community’s future to an industrial project that prioritizes cost savings over safety and environmental protection.

I strongly urge the planning department to reject this proposal in the best interest of public health, environmental protection, and the future of Kurnell as a vibrant, safe community for families.

The proposed changes raise significant and valid concerns that affect the health, safety, and wellbeing of local families, the environment, and the broader Kurnell community. My key objections are as follows:
1. Toxic Contamination and Health Risks
There is serious concern that Mod 7 allows for contamination and toxins to remain onsite, rather than requiring a full remediation of the land. This poses a direct risk to public health — especially for children who live, play, or attend school in the area — through potential exposure to soil, dust, or groundwater pollution. Without full clean-up and independent monitoring, this site remains a long-term health risk.
2. Impact on Families and Vulnerable Groups
Kurnell is home to many young families and elderly residents. The cumulative impacts of increased industrial activity, airborne particles, noise, and heavy vehicle traffic can cause long-term harm to community wellbeing, including respiratory issues, stress, and reduced mental health. Children are especially vulnerable to environmental toxins.
3. Threats to Wildlife, Waterways, and Mangroves
The site’s proximity to Towra Point Nature Reserve, Botany Bay, and the mangrove wetlands means any disturbance, runoff, or contamination could have irreversible effects on sensitive ecosystems. This includes native birdlife, marine species, and endangered habitats. Mod 7 increases the risk of pollutants entering these waterways and permanently damaging critical conservation areas.
4. Incomplete Remediation and Legacy Industrial Waste
Despite repeated community concerns, the site has never been fully remediated after previous industrial use. Mod 7 does not address this adequately. Allowing development without full site clean-up shifts the burden of environmental risk to the community and the natural landscape.
5. Overdevelopment and Inappropriate Land Use
The proposal effectively transforms a contaminated, land-locked industrial site into something incompatible with the surrounding environment. The scale and intensity of the proposed development do not reflect the local character or the sensitive coastal context of Kurnell. It sets a precedent for industrial expansion in a town that should be moving toward environmental restoration, not degradation.
6. Loss of Amenity and Conflict with Sanctuary Zones
Towra Point is a declared Ramsar-listed wetland and part of a protected sanctuary zone. Mod 7 conflicts with its environmental protections and undermines national and international commitments to conservation. Development so close to this reserve disrespects the ecological value of the area.

In summary, Mod 7 is not in the public interest. It poses unacceptable risks to health, safety, environmental integrity, and the character of the Kurnell Peninsula. I urge Council to reject this modification and require full site remediation and independent assessment before any further development is considered.

Re: Mod 7: I strongly object to the proposed battery storage facility in Kurnell. This area is already under significant environmental and industrial pressure. The introduction of a large-scale battery site raises serious concerns about fire risk, toxic chemical leakage, and long-term safety—especially given Kurnell’s exposure to high winds and its proximity to residential areas and environmentally sensitive zones like Kamay Botany Bay National Park.
The community has not been adequately consulted, and the long-term impact on public health, noise levels, and the local ecosystem has not been properly assessed. I urge decision-makers to prioritise the wellbeing of local residents and the protection of this unique area by rejecting the proposal.

No 1 / I am totally against this proposal, it would increase emissions during the combustion of waste materials in our aera plus the concerns about toxic pollutants. A major factor is this facility being close to hosing , the Wetlands with sensitive ecosystems, Schools and the National parks where there is always a lot of people.
No 2 / All the locals feel the consultation process has been insufficient and poorly done. the community trust is in all this is nowhere to be seen.
No3 / This will bring a lot more heavy vehicle traffic along Captain Cook Drive with only two lanes one in and one out and surrounding areas. Mod7 also adds to the burden of the Ampol refinery fuel operations ,The Desalination plant and all other waste and industrial activities in Kurnell.
No 3 / Kurnell holds major cultural , natural and Historical significance with the aboriginal people.
No4 / Kurnell is a village type area with a lot of younger families wanting to move in to this area, plus a lot of older residents who have spent a lot of money on there e homes. With all these industrial type activities happening in Kurnell the price of our homes will significantly drop .