MOD 7 Infrastructure consolidation and remediation

I strongly object to the Mod 7 infrastructure consolidation and premeditation at Ampol site on Kurnell. As a resident of the area raising a young family here I believe the health, wellbeing and interests of the residents is at risk. The community is growing and at the forefront should be the best interest for the young families, families and residents who have lived here their whole life. This initiative is the completed opposite to what we need. The fact that this has even been an idea for AMPOL to save money is absolutely disgusting. They once again have not thought about the local residents and how this will significantly impact us. Kurnell is a changing community, we want to improve our community, increase businesses and improve house prices and look after our beautiful community. This will destroy it
AMPOL start thinking about the people that live here. The kids being raised here and not how you can cut costs that will impact out health and water ways.

Submission: Objection to MOD-7 – Incomplete Remediation of Contaminated Industrial Site, Kurnell Peninsula
I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification (MOD-7) regarding the remediation of the heavily contaminated Kurnell Peninsula industrial site.
I am deeply concerned about the significant environmental and public health risks posed by this modification. MOD-7 essentially allows Ampol to offload the long-term environmental costs linked to fossil fuel extraction and processing, enabling further degradation of an already compromised site. This modification allows Ampol to avoid taking full responsibility for the complete decontamination of the land, including the removal of hazardous materials.
Ampol must be held to its obligation to undertake a thorough, comprehensive cleanup of the site. The proposed modifications risk not only the future environmental health of the area but also the trust of the public, which is entitled to expect that these matters be handled with the utmost care for future generations.
The Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act 1954 (No. 34) (p. 33) stipulates that the company occupying the land defined in MOD-7 must not present a danger to public health. The diesel spill on 7 April 2022, in which 9,000 litres of diesel were released into Kurnell Village and nearby waterways due to grossly inadequate fuel storage management, is a clear violation of this law. The spill, compounded by heavy rainfall, caused toxic chemicals to spread into residential areas, leading to reported symptoms among residents such as nausea, headaches, and eye irritation. There were also fatalities among local wildlife.
Despite a relatively minor fine of $700,000 imposed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), the environmental, psychological, and ecological consequences of the spill have been both severe and lasting. One of the most troubling effects is the ongoing deterioration of the Towra Point Nature Reserve, a RAMSAR-listed wetland of international importance.
In addition, the Act (p. 27) explicitly prohibits the company from allowing solid or liquid waste to enter Botany Bay unless it has been rendered completely harmless to marine life and incapable of causing ecological harm. Yet, these provisions have been repeatedly breached.
The 2002 Spill has decimated arears of local mangroves and without full remediation of the site the potential for further damage is inevitable The fact that Ampol’s past track record may point to a lack of proper response or remediation is especially concerning.
MOD-7 also proposes the removal—either partial or complete—of the oily water separation system, which would significantly increase the volume of untreated runoff entering nearby bays and wetlands. Allowing this would exacerbate the discharge of chemical pollutants into a RAMSAR-listed site, which is not only environmentally reckless but also ethically indefensible.
Furthermore, it is essential to address the contamination of local waterways by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These chemicals, known for their persistence in the environment and bioaccumulation in both aquatic ecosystems and humans, pose an ongoing threat. PFAS contamination of Botany Bay and surrounding areas must be treated as a critical part of the site’s remediation. These chemicals do not degrade easily and can remain in the water and soil for decades, causing long-term damage to local ecosystems and potentially entering the food chain. It is vital that Ampol takes full responsibility for the identification, removal, and treatment of PFAS contamination from the site and its surrounding waterways to prevent further harm.
Furthermore, the July 2007 Conservation Management Plan for the Kurnell Peninsula highlights the importance of protecting local biodiversity, particularly the endangered Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurelia), whose habitat lies within the affected area. This species, which is listed as vulnerable under both state and federal legislation, is already under significant threat from habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change. The proposed modifications under MOD-7 would further compromise the integrity of their habitat, potentially driving this species closer to extinction. It is crucial that the remediation efforts prioritize the preservation and recovery of this frog population, ensuring that all activities at the site are consistent with the objectives outlined in the Conservation Management Plan and that they do not exacerbate the risks faced by this endangered species.

Additionally, the proposed capping of contaminated solid waste is, at best, a temporary and inadequate solution to the site's long-term environmental issues. Capping does not address the root cause of the contamination, nor does it eliminate the risk of further leaching of toxic substances into the surrounding soil and waterways. This approach merely places a band-aid over a deep wound, deferring the responsibility of proper remediation. The potential for long-term environmental harm—particularly to local ecosystems and human health—will remain, and this method falls short of the comprehensive cleanup required to restore the site fully. A proper, lasting solution must include the complete removal and treatment of all hazardous materials, not a superficial covering that allows the contamination to persist beneath the surface.
The proposal to allow Ampol to independently test, audit, and report on its own remediation efforts—removing the requirement for mandatory reporting to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)—is deeply concerning. Given Ampol's track record of non-compliance, including the 2022 diesel spill and the ongoing violations of environmental regulations, this arrangement is not only inappropriate but dangerously naive. Allowing the company to self-report without independent oversight risks further failures in accountability and transparency. The EPA must retain the authority to oversee and verify all testing and reporting to ensure that remediation is carried out in full compliance with legal and environmental standards. Trusting Ampol to regulate itself, after multiple breaches of environmental law, would set a dangerous precedent and undermine public confidence in the integrity of the remediation process.
It is also important to recognize the significant investments the state government has made in developing Kurnell as a key destination for tourism and recreation. The construction of the new Kurnell ferry wharf and visitor centre are testament to this vision, designed to enhance public access to the area's natural beauty, promote local tourism, and preserve the integrity of the surrounding environment. Allowing MOD-7 to proceed, with its potential to enable further industrial developments at the Ampol site, directly contradicts this investment in Kurnell’s future as a pristine and accessible natural and recreational area. The continued industrialization of the Kurnell Peninsula would not only undermine these government investments but also threaten the very environmental and cultural values that the state is actively working to promote. The public’s expectation for a cleaner, greener Kurnell should not be at odds with the interests of industrial expansion that poses significant risks to the area's long-term health and ecological sustainability.
Under the MOD-7 proposal, Ampol's land would be prepared for the construction of an 800MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility, located just 400 meters from residential properties and next to Australia's largest fuel storage facility. This raises alarmingly high safety and health risks. Kurnell is located only 17 kilometres from Sydney's city centre and approximately 6 kilometres from Australia's largest airport, Kingsford Smith. The close proximity of these high-risk facilities significantly amplifies the potential for catastrophic consequences. A disaster at this site—such as fires, explosions, or chemical leaks—could impact not only the local community but also vital infrastructure, including the airport. This is akin to placing an uncontrollable fire source next to a bomb. Given the risks to public safety and the location's close ties to essential urban and transport hubs, this proposal must be critically reconsidered to prevent devastating impacts on both local residents and the broader Sydney region
Given the serious environmental and health risks involved, I urge the Department to reject MOD-7. Instead, I call for a fully transparent, scientifically rigorous cleanup process, one that aligns with Ampol’s legal obligations and prioritizes ecological justice. The company must be held accountable for restoring the site to a condition that poses no threat to human or environmental health.

Images of the Destroyed Mangrove Are from the 2022 Spill attached
The Green and Golden
Bell Frog Key
Population at Kurnell managements plan attached

I strongly oppose the approval of Modification 7 at Kurnell.I’ve lived in Kurnell my whole life—20 years—and I love my community, the beach, the wetlands, and the local ovals where I spend time with friends and play sport. I also go fishing with my dad and mates. This proposal deeply concerns me. Leaving contaminated soil—such as PFAS, hydrocarbons, and even asbestos—on-site permanently is unacceptable. Heavy rain and flooding could easily spread these toxins into Botany Bay, the wetlands, and the areas where we swim, fish, and walk. Risking our health and environment for corporate savings is not justifiable. Ampol originally committed to properly remediating the land and converting it into parkland or open community space. That gave residents hope. Now, the proposal is to retain industrial zoning indefinitely and merely cap the contamination instead of removing it. This is not good enough. If Modification 7 is approved, it won’t just endanger public health and the environment—it will impact the local economy, tourism, wildlife, and any prospects for future development. It means more industry, noise, pollution, and less green space for children and families. Please don’t let this happen. Kurnell is a unique and valued place. It must be protected—not turned into a permanent dumping ground. Ampol should be held to its original promise and carry out proper remediation. The community deserves a clean, safe future—not one burdened by toxic risks. In summary my dot point below:


Toxins staying on site.
Risk to kids, water, and wild life.
Lack of full clean up.
Industrial land locked forever.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Ampol Mod 7 development at Kurnell. Although I am not a resident, I am a regular visitor to this unique and treasured part of Sydney, and I feel compelled to voice my concerns.
Kurnell is a place of great environmental, cultural, and recreational value. It holds deep historical significance as the landing site of Captain Cook and is home to sensitive ecosystems, including coastal dunes, wetlands, and diverse wildlife habitats. As someone who frequently visits the area to enjoy its natural beauty, walk along the Cape Baily Track, swim at Silver Beach, and observe local birdlife, I am alarmed at the potential impacts this proposal could have.
The introduction of further industrial modifications – especially those involving fuel infrastructure – poses significant risks to the surrounding environment. These include air and water pollution, increased heavy vehicle traffic, and the potential for chemical spills or accidents in a fragile and highly sensitive ecological zone. Kurnell has already borne the environmental cost of industrial activity for decades; this proposal would only add to that burden.
Furthermore, expanding industrial operations at Kurnell is at odds with broader efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It sends the wrong message at a time when we should be investing in the protection and rehabilitation of precious natural areas rather than expanding their industrial use.
As a regular visitor, I am deeply concerned about the cumulative impact this proposal may have on public access, safety, air quality, and the overall experience of those who come to Kurnell to connect with nature, learn its history, and enjoy its unspoiled coastal environment.
I respectfully urge you to reject the proposed Ampol Mod 7 project and instead prioritise sustainable alternatives that honour and protect the unique value of Kurnell for current and future generations.
Sincerely
David Barzan

I write to formally object to the proposed Kurnell Battery Storage System (BESS), currently under assessment as a State Significant Development (SSD). While I acknowledge the importance of energy transition and storage in facilitating renewable energy integration, I have serious concerns regarding the suitability of this project in the Kurnell area due to the following issues:
Proximity to Residential Areas: The proposed site is in close proximity to existing residential dwellings. Large-scale lithium-ion BESS installations have well-documented fire and thermal runaway risks, as acknowledged in both international literature and recent Australian incidents (e.g. Victoria’s 2021 Moorabool fire). A failure event could expose residents to hazardous gases, toxic smoke, and potential evacuation scenarios. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must account for worst-case scenarios and prove that risk can be acceptably mitigated.
Cumulative Industrial Burden: Kurnell has long borne the burden of industrial development—from oil refineries to desalination infrastructure. The addition of another hazardous energy facility, without proper planning reform or cumulative impact analysis, further erodes community wellbeing and amenity. There must be a cap on the compounding of industrial risk in already stressed communities.
Planning Precedent and Inappropriate Zoning: Approval of this development risks setting an unacceptable planning precedent for large-scale battery systems to be placed near homes and sensitive land uses. Until robust planning controls and setback guidelines for BESS facilities are finalised in NSW, no such projects should be approved in peri-urban or residential environments.
Conclusion: In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Kurnell BESS project be refused until:
Full risk assessments (including fire and explosion scenarios) are publicly released;
And meaningful community consultation has been demonstrated.

Objection to Modification 7: Prioritizing Full Cleanup for Kurnell's Health, Heritage, and Future
As a mother of three young children (aged 5, 4, and 2) attending Kurnell preschool—located just 500m from Ampol's site—I've lived in Kurnell for 8 years. We've built our life here in a thriving community transformed since the refinery shutdown in 2014. Kurnell is now a much loved destination, drawing over 1 million visitors annually to Kamay Botany Bay National Park, boosted by National & State investments and rejuvenation in $78 million in Kamay Wharves, $50 million Gamay Visitor Centre, and promenade upgrades ($10-15 million). This has fostered new local businesses (café, fish and chips, etc), doubled kindergarten classes at the primary school (500m away), and boosted families like mine. Yet Mod 7 threatens this progress by abandoning full cleanup for permanent on-site toxin capping, risking health, environment, and our historical land.
I strongly object to Mod 7 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act Section 4.55—mods must not worsen impacts) and Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act 1954 (No. 34 public health protection and no harmful bay discharge). The original approval mandated off-site removal of contaminants like PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos. Mod 7 reverses this (Section 4, Page 60), allowing capping for cost savings while locking in E5 industrial zoning enabling Ampol’s broader monetary strategy of Kurnell Energy & Industry Precinct (KEIP), Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) blending… this is likely only the start as the subdivision maps illustrate. I dread to think of Tourists sentiment and perception (local and worldwide) once they see what Ampol and the Australian Government has allowed to happen to Kurnell, the birthplace of Australia (Kurnell the Birthplace of Australia - an industrial wasteland).
Further to this:
Health and Safety Risks: Capping PFAS—linked to cancer (global studies)—and hydrocarbons ignores flood/leak threats (Figure 7-5, Page 111), with self-monitoring and no new independent audits. Who is accountable for future disasters? Proximity to preschool, primary school, girls hall, and Marton Park (used for sports/Christmas events) endangers children. The 2022 diesel spill (9,000 liters, EPA fine $700,000, September 20, 2023) killed mangroves in Quibray Bay (visible on Google Earth) and caused nausea/headaches—breaching Act 1954 p.33 (public health protection).
Environmental Impacts: Kurnell, a Ramsar-protected wetland (DCCEEW), risks permanent pollution to Botany Bay, violating Act 1954 p.27 (no harmful discharge). Dead mangroves from past spills highlight biodiversity threats.
Historical and Social Factors: As Australia's birthplace—Cook's 1770 landing on Dharawal land—Kurnell is culturally sacred. Mod 7 erodes this heritage, clashing with National & State investments turning it from industrial eyesore to family/tourism hub. Tourism is surging as evident on weekdays and weekends. People are travelling to watch the Whales, attend sporting events, take their dogs to the dog beach, visit Captain Cooks landing, the list goes on.
Broader Precedent: Approving Mod 7 in a Ramsar site sets a dangerous national/international example: if sacred/historical, protected Kurnell allows buried toxins, what stops it elsewhere? Sydney and Australia will be watching.
I strongly Reject Mod 7: Enforce off-site removal and do not turn Kurnell into an industrial wasteland. Kurnell's future as an internationally recognised, safe, vibrant community—not industrial dump—depends on it.
Regards,
Alice

I am a resident of Kurnell and a parent of four young children. I strongly oppose MOD 7 in its current form due to serious concerns over contamination, public safety, environmental impact, and lack of meaningful community engagement.

Environmental health and contamination risk:
MOD 7 proposes capping contaminated soil rather than fully removing it, effectively leaving hazardous substances—particularly petroleum hydrocarbons, PFAS and asbestos—buried onsite in perpetuity. This approach means future generations, including my children, could be exposed if caps degrade or fail. The proposal to redirect stormwater from 22% of the site into Quibray Bay—part of the RAMSAR‑protected Towra Point wetlands—is especially troubling given recent diesel contamination incidents in Marton Park draining into sensitive ecosystems.

Flooding, stormwater and ecosystem impact:
MOD 7’s planned changes to stormwater pathways and increased runoff (10‑20%) raise serious flood and environmental risks to local residents and protected wetlands. A new flood study reflecting recent climate‑adjusted rainfall data must be integrated before such changes are approved.

Process inadequacy and lack of transparency:
The exhibition period was a mere 15 days—plus a one‑week extension—to review a highly technical proposal with multiple voluminous appendices. This timeline is insufficient for community members without technical expertise to meaningfully assess its implications.

No user‑friendly summary was provided, and there has been minimal direct outreach to the broader Shire or to Sutherland Shire councillors.

Recommendations:
1. Reject MOD 7 in its current form.
2. Require full remediation of contamination (soil and groundwater), not simple capping.
3 .Mandate a transparent, plain‑language community education process and meaningful engagement.

Conduct an updated flood and stormwater study incorporating climate‑adjusted data before approving any runoff changes.

Provide clear assurance that site activities will not threaten public safety, especially given the single access road in and out of Kurnell.

My four children, as well as the rest of the community deserve to grow up and thrive in an environment that is safe, healthy, and fully remediated—not one where contamination remains underground indefinitely. I request that MOD 7 be withheld, strengthened, and reopened for broader, more inclusive consultation.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

See Attachment below.

Submission: Objection to MOD-7 – Incomplete Remediation of Contaminated Industrial Site, Kurnell Peninsula
I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification (MOD-7) concerning the remediation of the heavily contaminated Kurnell Peninsula industrial site.
As a staff member at a local preschool, I am deeply concerned about the significant environmental and public health risks posed by this modification. MOD-7 effectively enables Ampol to externalize the long-term environmental costs associated with fossil fuel extraction and processing, further degrading an already severely compromised site. This modification allows Ampol to avoid its responsibility for fully decontaminating the land, including the removal of hazardous materials.
Moreover, our local community, including the children who attend the preschool, directly interacts with the local environment. The nearby waterways, including those impacted by the contamination, are utilized for bush Kindy—an educational program that brings young children into natural environments to foster their learning and connection to nature. Any compromise to the health of these ecosystems, including through the release of toxic substances, directly endangers the wellbeing of these children and the broader community who rely on the health of these waters for recreation, education, and sustenance.
Ampol must be held to its obligation to undertake a thorough and comprehensive cleanup of the site. The proposed modifications risk not only the future environmental health of the area but also the trust of the public, which is entitled to expect that these matters be handled with the utmost care for future generations.
The Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act 1954 (No. 34) (p. 33) stipulates that the company occupying the land defined in MOD-7 must not present a danger to public health. The diesel spill on 7 April 2022, in which 9,000 liters of diesel were released into Kurnell Village and nearby waterways due to grossly inadequate fuel storage management, is a clear violation of this law. The spill, compounded by heavy rainfall, caused toxic chemicals to spread into residential areas, leading to reported symptoms among residents such as nausea, headaches, and eye irritation. There were also fatalities among local wildlife.
Despite a relatively minor fine of $700,000 imposed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), the environmental, psychological, and ecological consequences of the spill have been both severe and lasting. One of the most troubling effects is the ongoing deterioration of the Towra Point Nature Reserve, a RAMSAR-listed wetland of international importance.
In addition, the Act (p. 27) explicitly prohibits the company from allowing solid or liquid waste to enter Botany Bay unless it has been rendered completely harmless to marine life and incapable of causing ecological harm. Yet, these provisions have been repeatedly breached.
MOD-7 also proposes the removal—either partial or complete—of the oily water separation system, which would significantly increase the volume of untreated runoff entering nearby bays and wetlands. Allowing this would exacerbate the discharge of chemical pollutants into a RAMSAR-listed site, which is not only environmentally reckless but also ethically indefensible.
Furthermore, it is essential to address the contamination of local waterways by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These chemicals, known for their persistence in the environment and bioaccumulation in both aquatic ecosystems and humans, pose an ongoing threat. PFAS contamination of Botany Bay and surrounding areas must be treated as a critical part of the site’s remediation. These chemicals do not degrade easily and can remain in the water and soil for decades, causing long-term damage to local ecosystems and potentially entering the food chain. It is vital that Ampol takes full responsibility for the identification, removal, and treatment of PFAS contamination from the site and its surrounding waterways to prevent further harm.
Given the serious environmental and health risks involved, I urge the Department to reject MOD-7. Instead, I call for a fully transparent, scientifically rigorous cleanup process, one that aligns with Ampol’s legal obligations and prioritizes ecological justice. The company must be held accountable for restoring the site to a condition that poses no threat to human or environmental health, especially for the children who learn and play in these ecosystems.

This project is an absolute disgrace.

The fact a company as big as ampol which pulled in profits last year of 35 billion aud want to walk away from their obligations to clean up wastes produced by them and simply build above them to save a dollar is horrible.

My parent spent their life savings to buy in Kurnell and my best friends have also just put themselves in great debt to build a life there. This lack of responsibility to clean up the buried waste and risk the health of the residents local and further is disgusting. The fact above their is even an option to support this project is mind boggling.
If this was a sole trader burying asbestos in their backyard to save costs they would face jail time, hold ampol to the same standard as the general public

Put an end to this disgrace

I strongly insist that all soil and water pollution should be removed, not covered up or sealed. If only to discourage future developments from taking the cheap and dirty route of "pollute, and then cover up instead of remediating".

I have no objections against future industrial developments in the area, such as energy storage facilities, as long as:
1) there is no air, water, soil, noise or light pollution by those developments - or at least, not at levels exceeding ordinary residential dwellings;
2) there is significant green cover: grass, bush, trees. As much as possible. At least 50% of the area, preferably 75%, ideally 90%. Uniformly enough distributed to provide wildlife corridors and recreational green spaces for local residents. Native plants, not introduced species. With actual safety measures in place to protect the wildlife from industrial impacts, such as, electrical hazards;
3) the industrial developments are neither vulnerable to impacts of climate change nor furthering the global warming.

I am writing to strongly object to the mod 7 infrastructure consolidation and remediation at the former refinery site in kurnell.
My family has called Kurnell home for the past 5 years and we are raising our 3 kids here. It has been our dream for many years to call Kurnell home because it is one of the only remaining suburbs left in Sydney that reminds me of my childhood. Where kids can be kids exploring our beautiful national park, fishing, riding bikes, playing footy, boating and swimming to name a few. Kurnell is not just a suburb it is our community and our safe place for all the residents and children. Who deeply love its history and environment
The proposed mod 7 plan completely destroys this way of life and our beautiful community.
Leaving dangerous contamination such as hydrocarbons, asbestos buried on site instead of being safely removed, PFAS.
This would allow toxic waste to remain in the ground putting our health and our children’s health at risk. Not to mention what it would do to our wetlands, parks and waterways.
We have seen 1st hand the destruction that miss handled industrial activity can do to our beautiful environment with spills, smells and damage to houses, community spaces, people’s health and our local ecosystem. This would only get worse with mod 7, essentially giving Ampol the right to monitor their own site independently with no clear obligation to safely and cleanly remediate the land. Locking the land into industrial use forever cutting off any potential for a safe community friendly or environmentally safe environment.
Kurnell is a beautiful suburb surrounded by healthy national parks and waterways. Why would you allow that to be destroyed for the sake of this mod 7 plan.
I strongly urge you to reject mod 7. Ampol should be held accountable and required to remove all contamination off site and undergo independent environmental audits under clear and enforceable timelines.
Please choose healthy long term community and environmental protection over greedy corporate convenience.
Thank you

I strongly oppose the Kurnell refinery project due to its environmental risks, including air and water pollution, increased industrial emissions, and long-term ecological damage to nearby protected areas like Botany Bay and Kamay Botany Bay National Park. This area is environmentally sensitive and should not absorb further industrial pressure

Submission: Objection to MOD-7 – Incomplete Remediation of Contaminated Industrial Site, Kurnell Peninsula

I write to formally object to the proposed modification (MOD-7) concerning the remediation of the heavily contaminated former industrial site at Kurnell.

Although I am not a resident of Kurnell, I am deeply concerned by the broader environmental and public health implications of this proposal. The modification represents an unacceptable externalisation of the long-term environmental costs associated with fossil fuel extraction, processing, and use. MOD-7 facilitates the further degradation of an already severely compromised site, enabling Ampol to abdicate its full responsibility to undertake comprehensive decontamination and off-site removal of hazardous materials.

Ampol must not be permitted to forgo its obligation to conduct a thorough and complete remediation of the site. This is critical not only to environmental recovery but also to restoring public trust and safeguarding the well-being of current and future generations.

The Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act 1954 (No. 34) (p. 33) explicitly states that the company occupying the land defined in MOD-7 must not pose a danger to public health. However, the serious diesel spill on 7 April 2022—when 9,000 litres of diesel were released into Kurnell Village and adjacent waterways due to negligent fuel storage management—demonstrates a clear breach of this obligation. The combination of this spill with heavy rainfall led to the widespread dispersal of toxic chemicals into residential areas, resulting in reported symptoms among residents such as nausea, headaches, and eye and throat irritation. Tragically, there were also reported deaths among local wildlife.

Despite the imposition of a relatively modest $700,000 fine by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), strong evidence indicates that the environmental, psychological, and ecological impacts of the spill have been profound and long-lasting. In particular, there has been a noted decline in the health of the Towra Point Nature Reserve, a RAMSAR-listed wetland of international significance.

Furthermore, the Act (p. 27) includes a clear and binding provision stipulating that the company must not permit any solid or liquid matter to enter Botany Bay unless it has been rendered completely innocuous to marine life and incapable of causing ecological harm. It also requires strict compliance with all directives issued by the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board and the Chief Secretary’s Department to prevent pollution of Botany Bay. These conditions have been breached on multiple occasions.

MOD-7 also proposes the partial or complete removal of the oily water separation system, which would significantly increase the volume of untreated runoff into adjacent bays and wetlands. Permitting increased discharge of chemical pollutants into a RAMSAR-listed site would not only be environmentally irresponsible but also ethically indefensible.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Department to reject MOD-7. Instead, I call for a full, transparent, and scientifically robust clean-up of the site, consistent with both legal obligations and ecological justice. Ampol must be held accountable for restoring the land to a condition that poses no risk to human or environmental health.

---------------------------------
Gregory John Olsen

On Gundungurra country, never ceded

The risk of irreparable damage being done to local ecosystems as a result of the lack of genuine clean up being done should be a concern for all shire residents

I have lived in Kurnell since 1958. My father has been in Kurnell since 1940 and my children and grandchildren continue to call Kurnell home. My family has coexisted with Caltex, now Ampol, understanding their role in providing fuel. However, I strongly oppose the Ampol Mod-7 proposal for the following reasons
1.Proximity of Toxic Waste to Residents: The proposal to bury potentially toxic waste dangerously close to Kurnell residents is unacceptable. The health and safety risks to our community, including my family, are deeply concerning.
2.Unequal Land Use Restrictions: As a Kurnell resident, I am prohibited from burying hazardous materials on my property. Why is Ampol exempt from such regulations that every other landowner must follow?
3.Ampol’s Disregard for Community Standards: Ampol’s belief that they can bypass local restrictions reeks of arrogance. No landowner in Kurnell is permitted to store toxic waste, and Ampol should not be an exception.
4.Future Land Use Concerns: What are the long-term implications for the land once Ampol’s storage facility is decommissioned? The potential for future residential use is uncertain, risking permanent environmental damage to our community.
5.I do not understand why the residents in Kurnell are the ones having to provide these 250 word submissions when we elect representatives from local government and state government to look after our interests and protect us from these environmental vandals.
My family has endured Ampol’s operations for decades, but this proposal crosses a line. I cannot leave Kurnell and abandon this fight, my roots here are too deep. I urge the rejection of the Mod-7 proposal to protect our community’s health, environment, and future.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.
Kurnell Resident

All of this goes against their premisses earlier. They leave poison rubish in the rest of future owners who cannot clean it up. Same as miners and their damage. Should not be allowed.

My name is Ronald Canham, and I’ve been a resident of Kurnell since 1985. I’ve seen a lot of changes in this community over the decades, and I’ve worked hard all my life—starting as a truck driver at the age of 16. I know heavy industry. I know transport infrastructure. And I know when something doesn’t add up.

Ampol’s proposed changes under Modification 7 are completely out of step with the reality on the ground in Kurnell. The infrastructure here is not designed to handle the increased industrial activity they are proposing. Our roads are narrow, already under strain, and not built for the volume or weight of traffic this proposal will bring. The risk to pedestrians, cyclists, and everyday families just trying to enjoy their suburb is being ignored.

Drainage is another major concern. The area is already vulnerable when it rains, and the new stormwater management plans being floated by Ampol are not going to fix anything — they’re likely to make things worse. We’re talking about a site with a known contamination history, right next to sensitive environments like Quibray Bay and Towra Point. Poor drainage here doesn’t just mean puddles — it means toxic runoff, further mangrove die-off, and damage to protected ecosystems.

I’ve lived here for 40 years, and I’ve seen how the community has tried to move forward from the industrial past. We were told that the refinery days were over, that we’d be transitioning to something better for the environment and for residents. But now Ampol wants to entrench themselves even deeper into our community — more infrastructure, more contamination, more disruption.

Enough is enough. Ampol needs to take responsibility for the environmental damage they’ve caused and clean up the site properly. We don’t want short-term fixes, capped pollution, or industrial expansion disguised as remediation. We want them to leave our community alone so we can enjoy the place we’ve worked so hard to call home.

We deserve better than this. Kurnell deserves better than this.

My name is Lorraine Bell, and I have lived in Kurnell for 27 years. I’m a pensioner, and at this stage of life, I had hoped to enjoy the peace and natural beauty of my home in my remaining years. My property backs onto Quibray Bay, an area I’ve always treasured for its wildlife and mangrove ecosystems. Since the Ampol spill in April 2022, I’ve watched the mangroves die off in heartbreaking numbers. It has been devastating to see such destruction right outside my back fence, and now I’m deeply concerned about what comes next.

The proposed capping and stormwater changes being planned will result in further disturbance to this already damaged environment, and much of this will occur right behind my home. I am extremely worried that these activities will increase contamination in an area that has already suffered so much. This isn’t just about the loss of natural beauty — it’s about the long-term health of the bay, the local community, and our property values. As someone who depends on a pension, I can’t afford to see the value of my home fall because of corporate negligence and inadequate remediation.

Ampol must take full responsibility for the damage it has caused. It is not enough to simply contain the problem — they must clean up the area properly for the sake of both the environment and the people who live here. We, the local residents, did not create this mess, yet we are the ones left living with its consequences. I urge decision-makers to listen to the people who are directly affected and to hold Ampol accountable. This is our home, and we deserve better.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) project in Kurnell.

The Kurnell Peninsula is a fragile and historically significant environment, home to unique coastal ecosystems, national parks, and migratory wildlife. Installing a large-scale industrial energy facility in this sensitive location is not only irresponsible — it’s a direct threat to our community and environment.

What’s most alarming is the proposed location of the BESS — immediately adjacent to existing petroleum and fuel storage facilities. This combination poses an extreme fire and explosion risk. Lithium-ion batteries are well-known for their potential to overheat and catch fire, and placing them next to massive fuel reserves is simply inviting disaster. This is not just a risk — it’s a recipe for catastrophe.

Kurnell has already endured decades of industrial burden, from refinery operations to waste and energy infrastructure. Our community should not be used as a dumping ground for dangerous energy experiments. The cumulative toll on our air, land, and water is already too high.

This project not only threatens the safety of residents, but it also endangers the entire Botany Bay ecosystem and surrounding marine life. We should be protecting and restoring the Kurnell Peninsula, not putting it at greater risk.

I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject the current BESS proposal. There are safer, more appropriate locations for such developments — Kurnell is not one of them.

Lisa