MOD 7 Infrastructure consolidation and remediation

Date: 25 July 2025
Planning Assessment Officer
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Subject: Formal Objection to SSD-5544-MOD-7 – Infrastructure consolidation and remediation
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing as resident of Kurnell to formally object to the proposed Modification 7 (MOD 7) to SSD-5544 for the Caltex (now Ampol) Refinery Conversion project.
While I acknowledge the importance of rehabilitating former industrial sites, this latest modification represents a clear and unacceptable departure from the original vision for the site. It prioritises industrial scale profit-making activities over environmental protection, community safety, and residential amenity. I ask that this modification be refused on the following grounds:
________________________________________
1. Escalation in Project Scope and Duration
The original SSD 5544 project approved in 2012 aimed to remediate the former refinery using mostly site-won materials, with a reasonable timeframe and minimal disruption to the local community. MOD 7 introduces:
• The importation of 1.5 million tonnes of external fill.
• A total earthworks volume now reaching 2.5 million tonnes.
• Extended timelines, pushing the project far beyond the initial completion targets.
This is no longer a remediation project. It is now a massive industrial reshaping of our suburb, with impacts that are wholly disproportionate to the original consent.
________________________________________
2. Traffic, Noise, and Safety Impacts on Local Residents
The increase in heavy vehicle traffic on Captain Cook Drive is of significant concern:
• These roads are already under pressure and not designed for constant high-volume truck haulage.
• Young families and children living in the area – including mine – will be at greater risk due to traffic congestion and decreased pedestrian safety.
• Extended haulage hours and vehicle movements will increase ambient noise, including early mornings, adversely affecting sleep and quality of life.
________________________________________
3. Air Quality and Dust Risks
The movement and handling of imported Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) and Excavated Natural Material (ENM) will inevitably generate increased airborne dust and/or odour. The community has not seen detailed, enforceable guarantees around:
• Dust & Odour suppression effectiveness.
• Real-time monitoring and publicly available results.
• Proactive mitigation near schools, playgrounds, and residences.
This is unacceptable in a densely inhabited coastal village.
________________________________________
4. Environmental Risks to Sensitive Areas
The Kurnell Peninsula is bordered by ecologically sensitive areas, including:
• Towra Point Nature Reserve (Ramsar-listed wetland),
• Botany Bay, and
• Quibray Bay.
• Kamay Botany Bay national Park
Any failure in erosion, sediment, or stormwater controls could damage these delicate ecosystems. The importation of fill from off-site sources increases the risk of cross-contamination, run-off, and habitat degradation. The long-term environmental consequences are not being adequately addressed.
________________________________________
5. Visual and Property Amenity Impacts
• MOD 7 proposes higher temporary stockpiles that will degrade the visual character of the area.
• Ongoing industrial activity will create visual blight inconsistent with residential zoning.
• These changes are likely to reduce local property values, affecting families who have invested in the area under the assumption that the site would be progressively remediated—not industrialised further.
________________________________________
6. Cumulative Fatigue on the Community
This is now the seventh modification since the project began. Each time, the changes have pushed the site further from rehabilitation and closer to a long-term industrial operation. The community has shown remarkable patience over the past decade, but enough is enough. This continual scope creep demonstrates disregard for residents and undermines public trust in the planning process.
________________________________________
7. Ampol is Prioritising Profit over People and Environment
This modification is clearly motivated by cost efficiencies and commercial interests—not environmental outcomes or community welfare. By seeking to import massive volumes of external material, Ampol is effectively turning the Kurnell site into a dumping ground for construction fill under the guise of remediation.
It is unconscionable that such a proposal should be entertained in a coastal village, home to families, schools, and protected natural assets. The residents of Kurnell and the greater Sutherland Shire deserve better.
________________________________________
Conclusion:
I respectfully urge the Department and consent authority to refuse SSD-5544-MOD-7. The impacts of this proposal are unjustified, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.
Sincerely,

Kurnell Resident

I am a local resident and owner of a property in Kurnell and have lived in our beautiful suburb for twenty (20) years.

I have seen lots of change over the years, some good and some not so good.

I have major concerns in this latest development of re-zoning part of Ampol’s site and then installing the battery energy storage systems.

If this is changed, there is an extremely high chance that any existing and future run off from spills left in the refinery/terminal will run into our beautiful national park, flora and fauna and our waterways. Our ocean needs to stay clean for all generations enjoying our beautiful beaches at Kurnell. Any run-off can then affect our marine life.

We have previously had thick black liquid coming through our taps from a previous leak. If this goes ahead there could be potentially more spills.

Our suburb is the birthplace of our nation and should be treasured as such. It is our history of where we have come from.

There is only one road in and one road out and the wear and tear of the road of more traffic will be detrimental to the locals. If the road is damaged, we are stranded. It is all well and good to say “we will fix any damage/s to the road” but that is being reactive, and us, as residents will suffer in the meantime.

By changing an area within Kurnell puts our suburb down. It makes us feel as though the government does not care about us, we have no other suburbs surrounding us, just put everything at Kurnell, the locals don’t care. We do care. It is where we live. I want to be able to enjoy my life, and I love living at Kurnell. It is the community that looks out for each other. It is the community that Santa Claus and Mrs Claus go up and down our streets on at Christmas Eve and the children get to see them.

All these changes with MOD 7 and then the installation of the BESS has a high chance of our properties to decrease in value.

The land should be properly cleaned and used for further residential development. This is what the government should be looking at. The government keeps saying that we are growing and residential housing is an issue. This will assist in fixing the issue.

Our suburb should be protected for any future re-zoning and industrial development and to keep it as the wonderful leafy suburb that we live in.

To: The Department of Planning and Environment
Re: Objection to Mod 7 and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Proposal – Kurnell

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing as a concerned resident of Kurnell to formally object to Modification 7 and the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility associated with this modification.

As a parent raising young children in this community, I am deeply alarmed by the potential risks to our air quality, natural environment, and overall public health. Kurnell is a uniquely sensitive area, bordered by national parks, coastal ecosystems, and residential neighbourhoods. Introducing an industrial-scale BESS facility here would fundamentally and irreversibly change the character of our suburb and jeopardise the health and safety of its residents.

While I acknowledge the importance of energy storage infrastructure in supporting renewable energy goals, such facilities must be located and managed with appropriate safety, environmental and community safeguards—none of which have been clearly demonstrated in this proposal.

One major concern is the lack of thorough geo-technical and environmental testing for the site. As local homeowners, we are required to undergo rigorous geo-testing simply to install a swimming pool. Yet, a project involving massive battery banks, high-voltage equipment, and significant fire and contamination risk appears to face far less scrutiny. This double standard is unacceptable and suggests a disregard for the environmental and geological sensitivities of the Kurnell area.

In addition, the burying and capping of toxins and pollutants on the Ampol site is not a solution—it is simply a cost-saving measure that prioritises financial efficiency over environmental and public health. This short-sighted approach shows no regard for the site's exposure to flooding, storm events, and other extreme weather conditions common to this geographical location. The risk of leaching, groundwater contamination, and pollution entering nearby waterways remains an ongoing threat. These decisions will have consequences—not just for the environment, but for our children’s physical and mental health in the years to come. Who will take responsibility then?

There is also a glaring contradiction in the direction of government priorities for this area. Kurnell is promoted as a place of great cultural and historical significance—millions have been invested in public infrastructure to celebrate its heritage. Over $3 million was spent on bronze sculptures; another $3 million on the whale-watching platform; $100 million on new wharf upgrades at Kurnell and La Perouse; and $25 million on a Visitor Centre to house the historically significant Gweagal Spears, returned from England—spears taken in 1770 after Captain Cook first stepped onto this land. These public investments frame Kurnell as a cultural icon and major tourism destination. Yet now, the same location is being earmarked for industrial development that brings toxic waste, chemical risks, and heavy infrastructure. It is as if we are turning a national treasure into a dumping ground—completely at odds with its cultural, environmental, and social value.

Additional points of concern include:

Air quality impacts, especially during extreme heat events or equipment failure (e.g., fire, explosion, or thermal runaway).

Inadequate public consultation and lack of transparency regarding long-term health and environmental risks.

Proximity to homes and children, with little detail on emergency response planning or safe buffer zones.

The potential for long-term environmental degradation and irreversible damage to local ecosystems.

In the absence of detailed independent assessments and meaningful community consultation, I urge the Department to reject Modification 7 and the associated BESS proposal. Kurnell deserves thorough planning, fair regulation, and genuine protection of its people and environment—especially for our youngest and most vulnerable residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this submission.

I am writing to express my strong objection to Modification 7 (Mod 7) for the proposed Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation at the former refinery site in Kurnell.

There are toxic chemicals, asbestos, PFAS, hydrocarbons and pollution buried all through the proposed site. It is unethical to leave this here and just cover it up as it is leaking into the waterways, wetlands, and homes nearby.

You are prioritising a million dollar company over the health and wellbeing of the kurnell community, the children, wildlife, waterways, national parks and the sacred site of our firsts nations people.

The plan to leave dangerous contaminants like PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos buried on site covered rather than removed is a cost-cutting measure dressed up as remediation. Allowing toxic waste to remain in the ground puts our health, our wetlands, and our future at risk.

We’ve seen first-hand the consequences of industrial activity in this area. The smells, the spills, the damage it’s already affected people’s health, homes, and the local ecosystem. To make this situation permanent is not only irresponsible, it’s unfair to those of us who have invested our lives here.

I urge the Department to reject Mod 7. Ampol should be required to remove all contaminated material off-site, undergo independent environmental auditing, and be held to a clear, enforceable timeline. Kurnell deserves a future that is safe, healthy, and built on genuine care for the land and the people who live here not one built on buried toxins.

RE: Strong Objection to MOD7 – Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation Proposal at Former Ampol Refinery, Kurnell

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express my unequivocal and deeply held objection to the MOD7 application submitted by Ampol for the former refinery site in Kurnell. As a long-term resident, business owner, and parent raising a young family in this community, I find this proposal not only profoundly concerning but dangerously short-sighted.

1.
Toxic Waste – A Legacy We Refuse to Accept

MOD7 allows for vast quantities of toxic materials—including capped asbestos, petroleum sludge, hydrocarbons, and PFAS—to remain buried on site. This is not remediation; it is a dangerous and negligent compromise that prioritises corporate cost-saving over human and environmental safety. The decision to “cap and leave” such materials, especially on a low-lying site adjacent to protected wetlands, is a ticking time bomb for the Botany Bay water table, migratory bird habitats, and endangered species within the Towra Point Nature Reserve, a Ramsar-listed wetland of international significance.

We already live with the consequences of previous contamination. Black sludge pits still fester near the horse stables and opposite the community recreation club—visible scars of neglect. Ampol has not even completed the clean-up of known spill sites. How can the community trust them with more?

2.
Environmental Catastrophe Risk – Fuel Load + BESS = Disaster

The site currently stores 750 million litres of fuel—one of the largest reserves in NSW. The addition of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), which is known globally to carry fire risks, compounds the hazard. Lithium-ion battery fires cannot be extinguished using conventional methods. In the event of an ignition, the only response is to let it burn, potentially for days.

A fire at a facility of this scale, next to massive fuel reserves, is not just a local risk—it would be one of the largest environmental disasters NSW has ever seen. It would threaten lives and properties in Kurnell, Greenhills Beach, Shearwater Estate, and Cronulla, not to mention the irreversible damage to our coastline, marine life, and air quality across the region.

3.
No Accountability, No Oversight, No Vision for the Community

There is no independent regulatory framework attached to MOD7. Ampol would monitor itself, with no fixed timeline for full remediation, no commitment to off-site removal of hazardous waste, and no binding obligation to rehabilitate the land for safe, future use. This is essentially a licence to lock this community into a permanent industrial dead zone.

The proposal disregards the future of Kurnell and its people. Instead of returning this land to a condition that could support green space, tourism, conservation, or community use, it condemns it—and us—to ongoing risk and degradation.


4.
Kurnell is Not a Dumping Ground – We Deserve Better

Kurnell is a place of natural beauty, rich Aboriginal and European heritage, and deep community roots. It is not just a convenient corner of Sydney where industry can bury its past mistakes. We have already borne more than our fair share of environmental burden. We will not accept another corporate shortcut that endangers our children, our homes, and the ecosystems we are trying so hard to protect.

I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reject MOD7.

Ampol must be held to a higher standard:

• All contaminated material must be removed off-site.
• A full and independent environmental audit must be enforced.
• A transparent, enforceable remediation timeline must be set.
• No BESS or additional high-risk infrastructure should be approved without rigorous third-party risk modelling and full community consultation.

We are not anti-progress—we are pro-safety, pro-community, and pro-environment. The decisions made today will shape this land and its people for generations. Please choose long-term safety and sustainability over short-term corporate convenience.

Sincerely,
Nikki & Nicholas Gidney
Residents– Kurnell

** I would like to acknowledge the significant technical issues that 3 members of our family faced when trying to set up an account for this submission. There were technical time outs and error codes consistently cropping up reading that the account was unable to be verified even when the verification link sent via email was clicked through and confirmed. We are a very experienced tech led family and it is a shame to see that this process is made so difficult for the community in general to lodge an objection. This has resulted in objections lodged on behalf of Kim Gilmore & Kurnell 1770 Pty Ltd being lodged under my personal name/account (Nikki Gidney) for Planning NSW on 24/7/25 and this specific objection to be lodged under the account we had originally set up for Kim to use, as her own personal account was unable to be accessed due to technical errors as noted above. Hopefully this area can also be reviewed and addressed.

I am a Kurnell resident and have been for 30 years, i do not agree with Ampol leaving the area in such a bad way. why is it big business can get away with this, it happens all the time, must be money changing hands i believe. Our land is so important to me and others that i cant believe this can happen. They should be held accountable for what they have done and be made to clean it up, and it should be left cleaner and safer than when they found it. we wont have a planet for much longer if we trat our world like this. They have the money, no excuses for what has happened and they have to clean it up. Who do they think they are, why would they want to leave it in this terrible state.

I am writing as a concerned member of the Kurnell community to formally object to the proposed Mod7 BESS development. This project poses unacceptable risks to our community,our local environment and the safety of all the residents. Kurnell is uniquely vulnerable due to it geography and infrastructure. 1. It has one road in and out, which presents a severe risk in the event of emergency. 2.The site lies directly opposite Australia’s largest fuel refinery,increasing the danger of fire or explosion. 3. The proposed BESS location is just 490 metres from homes, unlike other BESS sites placed safety away from residential areas.4.It borders Kama Botany Bay National Park,rich with native flora and fauna. No compelling justification has been offered for why this community must bear the burden of such a facility,when similar projects are located in remote,unpopulated zones. The choice of site contradicts principles of environmental stewardship and community safety. I respectfully urge you to reject the Mod7 proposal and seek alternative locations where such a development will not jeopardise lives, homes or habitat.

I am deeply concerned by the impact MOD 7 will have on Kurnell. I was born and raised in Kurnell and through my life I have seen multiple instances where government and big corporations have built useless and unnecessary projects and infrastructures such as MOD 7 and watch them be rendered useless. I have watched time and time again see these hopeful initiatives which aim at ‘maximising potential’ or ‘building a better future’ be at the expense of the Kurnell community, its environment, its history and what is the ‘Kurnell experience’. Quite literally bleeding it dry of all the greatness it has to offer.

I remember when Kurnell beach wasn’t contaminated by waste from the refinery. I remember when the desalination plant was built. I remember marching the streets in protest was a young girl, even at the age of 10 knew how significant Kurnell is and how such infrastructures could ruin the beauty that is Kurnell. I remember watching the desalination plant destroy homes, destroy our beach, and permanently mark our community.

Anyone that has spent a sunny weekend on Kurnell beach knows how special Kurnell is. Anyone who has been to a Kurnell Festival knows how deeply connected this community is. Anyone who has taken a moment to walk through our beautiful National Park (which borders the oil refinery - MOD 7 location) knows how historically rich and significant this land is. It is blatantly obvious that the developers and the government that suggest infrastructure such as MOD 7 have never taken the time to get to know the land and community in which they are so comfortable corrupting and destroying.

In Martin Luther King’s famous words, I have a dream- to one day raise a family that knows Sunday mornings soaking in the warm sun on Kurnell Beach, swimming in crystal clear waters. Just as I did as a child. I have a dream of raising kids that know their way around Kurnell National Park, exploring new and beautiful corners that they didn’t know were there. I have a dream of spending my later years of life with the community that marched with me to stop the desalination plant and share stories of how we fought for this beautiful place - and how our government listened to our pleas and chose to act for what is right.

I truely hope that these won’t remain dreams but will be a life myself and my community will get to experience. So today I beg that this proposal for MOD 7 is denied and instead the interests of the environment, the flora and fauna, and the community are put first. The Kurnell community has endured so much, it is a tightly-knitted community that embraces its neighbour and welcomes those who wish to enjoy the beauty Kurnell has to offer. Please listen to our concerns and please help us defend and protect this beautiful place.

Thank you for your time,
Falon Moore

Have lived in Kurnell for 30 years.Please refer to my full objection stating reason on the attached document.

Submission: Objection to Proposed Use of Ampol Refinery Terminal Site - Inadequate Remediation
and Hazardous Battery Storage
To:
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Major Projects Assessment
24 July 2025
RE: Strong Objection to Proposal to Leave Contaminated Soil Onsite and Store Lead Batteries -
Ampol Refinery Terminal Site, Kurnell
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to express my strong opposition to the current proposal regarding the Ampol Refinery
Terminal site in Kurnell, which involves:
1. Leaving contaminated soil onsite without full remediation, and
2. Permitting the storage of lead-acid batteries and associated hazardous materials on the site.
Both elements of this proposal are completely inappropriate for a suburban, environmentally
sensitive, and historically burdened community like Kurnell.
1. Unacceptable Risk from Incomplete Remediation
The Ampol site is known to contain legacy contaminants from decades of oil refining and fuel
terminal operations. Proposing to leave contaminated soil onsite poses a serious long-term health
risk to residents, the local environment, and groundwater. This includes potential exposure to
petrochemicals, heavy metals, and carcinogens - all of which are known to leach over time or
become airborne through dust and soil disturbance.
Given the site's proximity to Botany Bay, Towra Point Nature Reserve, and residential zones,
anything short of full site remediation is completely irresponsible and inconsistent with both
environmental best practices and community expectations.
2. Inappropriate and Dangerous Use of Site for Battery Storage
Allowing the storage of lead-acid batteries, which carry risks including toxic lead exposure, chemical
spills, and fire hazards, places the Kurnell community at further unnecessary risk. Lead and battery
acid are not only hazardous to human health, especially children, but also to local ecosystems and
marine environments that surround the site.
Industrial battery storage belongs in secured industrial zones, far removed from residential areas,
schools, parks, and environmental protection zones - not in a coastal suburb already carrying
environmental strain from past heavy industry.
3. Environmental Justice for Kurnell Residents
Kurnell has for too long carried the burden of industrial and infrastructure development - from oil
refining to fuel terminals, desalination, and more. To now leave contamination behind and approve
further hazardous industrial use flies in the face of environmental justice, safety, and equity for this
community.
Instead of burdening Kurnell further, the site should be rehabilitated and repurposed for low-impact
or community-benefiting use, with strict environmental safeguards and full community engagement.
4. Call for Full Environmental Impact Assessment and Community Consultation
The community has not been adequately consulted about this high-risk proposal. We request a
comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), including independent testing of soil and
groundwater, risk analysis of battery storage, and opportunities for public meetings, hearings, and
submissions.
We Call on the Department to:
- Reject any approval to leave contaminated soil onsite at the Ampol Kurnell site
- Prohibit hazardous industrial uses, including battery storage, in this residential and environmentally
sensitive area
- Enforce full site remediation and transparent reporting of contamination levels
- Conduct genuine consultation with the Kurnell community before any approval or rezoning
- Prioritise the health, safety, and environmental future of Kurnell residents and surrounding
ecosystems
Conclusion
Kurnell is not a dumping ground for environmental shortcuts and industrial risks. This community
has already sacrificed more than its fair share. We urge the NSW Government and all relevant
planning bodies to reject this proposal in full, and require a safe, clean, and community-minded
future for the Ampol site.
Yours faithfully,

I strongly object to Modification 7 (MOD 7) to SSD-5544 at the Kurnell Terminal. As a resident and environmental advocate, I believe this proposal is a missed opportunity for genuine environmental restoration and public benefit. Refining operations ceased in 2014, and the land—originally granted under the 1954 Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act for that specific use—should now be remediated and returned to the community, not repurposed for ongoing fuel distribution.
MOD 7 perpetuates industrial activity on ecologically and culturally significant land, contradicting the intent of original lease agreements, which required restoration upon closure. The proposed works retain a large industrial footprint and fail to address over 60 years of contamination, habitat loss, and cultural disruption.
Kurnell deserves full decontamination, reforestation, and reintegration with surrounding reserves to restore biodiversity and improve public access. I urge the NSW Government to reject MOD 7 and support the return of this land for open space or national park expansion, as called for by groups like the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre.

RE: MOD 7 OBJECTION - Ampol's proposed change of site cleanup

I am Kim Gilmore, Owner and Resident of Kurnell 1770 Bakery and
Caf6 at Shops 2 & 3 / L Captain Cook drive Kurnell. I established the
business in September 2018 after building the building in which I also
live.
It has been not easy going through Covid conditions for 2 1/2 years,
restriction of trade whilst the Whale Platform was being built over 2
seasons, and the closure of that section of Kamay National Park
opposite the shop whilst the wharf {was under construction.
I have watched the tourism industry grow, and I am informed that over
220,000 visitors a year view the whales from Cape Solander each year.
Migration figures show over 40,000 whales are estimated to migrate
each year with over 14,000 sightings from Cape Solander last year.
Tourism is a great proportion of my trade, and if you take the visitor
figures and say 10% of those 220,000 over 2 years spending say $20, it
is a substantial sum.
Similarly, people come to Kurnell because it is relatively pristine in
parts. Kurnell is One of the Top 10 snorkel spots in Sydney and
supports extensive marine life such as the Thorny Sea Dragon and the
vast sponge gardens not far from the wharf.
Kamay National Park is well known for bush walking, bird watching
(Ruddy Turnstone, Curlew, Godwit -protected migratory birds) and
whale watching
Boat Harbour is amazing and now has a proposal on the Holt Estate for
4300 new homes. This could increase Kurnell's population by around
12,000 new residents.
It is possibly the most underrated suburb in Sydney, just 45 minutes
away. It had the stigma of heavy industry for years but with the
cessation of fuel refining in 2014, and the exit of Carbon Black, and
Bayer, etc. the area has become close to its original state.
After 74 years of pollution from the Caltex/Ampol site it is now time to
remediate the site and REMOVE all contaminated areas.
I strongly object to the Mod 7 which proposes to "cap" the polluted
areas and further to try to rezone the proposed subdivision to Heavy
Industry.
As an outsider looking at the government process I am amazed that
this area which is promoted as a unique historical site for tourism,
installs $3M in bronze sculptures, spends over $3M on the new whale
watching platform, spends $100M on the new wharf systems at Kurnell
and La Perouse, spending $25 million on a new Visitor's Centre to
house the returned spears from England acquired by Captain Cook in
1770 after he stepped off onto the rock near the wharf at Kurnell on
29tr April 1770, NOW PROPOSES TO TURN THE PLA,CE INTO A
RUBBISH DUMP FOR TOXIC WASTE AND HEAVY INDUSTRY.
- PLEASE EXPLAIN why one Company's monetary greed should
be allowed to impact on the health and wellbeing of all
surrounding populous communities including Kurnell, Greenhills
and Shearwater and the proposed Boat Harbour Development
with 4,300 homes immediately adjoining the Ampol sight.
- We have also been advised that the AMPOL Fuel storage facility currently is holding 750 million litres of fuel which would make this one of the highest risk sites in all of NSW for this type of facility with such a close proximity to a large residential community, endangered wetlands, protected species and the Royal National Park.
- Burying / capping of toxins and pollutants on the Ampol site is
not a solution - but simply a cover to save money with no regard
to exposure to flooding, tornado, heavy weather conditions from
its geographical location, to the exposure of ongoing toxicity by
leaching, groundwater contamination, leaching into the
waterways whilst our new young generation suffer the medical
and mental health complications in the future. Who is to blame
then?
- Just one example, when tobacco was extensively grown in
Pemberton, Western Australia, there was a downturn in tobacco
sales due to imported Phillip Morris Brands. The industry had
extensively used DDT FOR SPRAYING THE TOBACCO CROPS.
They then reverted the area to cattle grazing, and Pemberton was
recorded as the highest rate of suicide in the Southern
Hemisphere. The DDT HAD LEACHED INTO THE SOILS - Later
Australia banned the use of DDT.
The AMPOL SITE must be remediated, as they did with the
removal of the Caltex Service Station at the entry to Kurnell, and
the recycling of soils in the area. Even after that you could still
smell the fumes from that site.
I strongly object to MoD 7, AND EMPLORE YOU TO CONSIDER
THE RESIDENTS SURROUNDING THE SITE - their health well
being, and lifestyle. The future of the tourism industry to Kurnell
and the livelihood of all those in the community ARE IN YOUR
RESPONSIBLE JUDGMENT.
DO NOT PASS MOD 7 OR THE PROPOSED HEAVY INDUSTRY
REZONING
Yours sincerely,
Kim Gilmore.
Kurnell 1770 Pty Ltd

hltp s:lpp-p ta n nln gBqrt aLn s!v4,o]4. au
RE: AMPOL'S PROPOSED CHANGE OF SITE CLEANUP UNDER MOD 7
I"ly name is Kim Gitmore and I have lived in Kurnett since
20'14. ln 2O16 I buitt the unit/residentiat btock at Kurnetl which comprises
3 units and 3 shops under a draconian zoning of "Shoptop Apartments". The zoning is under
Kurnett which I understand was created to provide a limitation of
occupancy in the event of necessary evacuation given the [ocation of the Cattex now AmpoI
Refinery and having regard to the singte lane entry and exit into Kurne[.
ln 2019 after the refinery closed its operations and continued with storage of fuet and aviation
fuet, the demotition of I betieve 17 towers took ptace on the Ampol Site.
It has been reveated on 14rh May 2025that Ampol imported Sustainabte Aviation Fuet SAF with
theviewtoblendingthesameandpumpingittotheairportacrossBotanyBay.2MlLLION
LITRES -2,000,000 litres are to be held at any one time on site, apart f rom the dieset and f uet
which remains Sydney's WHOLE SUPPLY OF FUEL FOR A MONTH AND A HALF. I understand
FUEL lS ALSO PUMPED TO Newcast[e. Recenttythe immediate neighbours to the site inctuding
mysetf experienced a high pitch shritl for approx. 24 - 36 hours. I woutd tike to know if it was the
btending and pumping operation and if so what noise levets were undertaken at the time in the
interests of the Community by Ampol.
Mydaughter bought a unitthe buitding at Kurnett and has married and is
now with her young famity aged 5 and 8 years, both of whom attend the Kurnett Pubtic Schoot.
ln fact, the Kindergarten ctass is now 2 classes due to the number of young famities moving into
Ku rn e tt.
Tourism has grown since Scott Morrison organised the Bronze sculptures ptaced atongthe
foreshore and the walkway atong Sitver Beach to the Boat Ramp and Bonna Point, which is a
protected sanctuary for mangroves and migratory birds such as the Curtew. Since then, the
NewWhate Watching Ptatform has been buitt at Cape Sotander (est. over $3M) and it is
recorded over 220,000 visitors a year view the migrating whates (about 40,000 whates [ast year
with $14,000 wha les spotted visua tty f rom Ca pe Sotander as they head north on their migration
in May and return from September to November), the wharves at Kurnetl and La Perouse were
buitt over a 2 year period and opened ea rty th is year (l understand over $100 MILLION). THEBE
lS NO FERRY SERVICE YET. The new Visitor's Centre in the Park is under construction at a n
estimated cost of $25,000,0OO due to be compteted by the end of 2026. The Aboriginat spears
taken back to Engtand by Captain Cook have been returned to Austratia and it is intended to
house the same in the new Visitor's Centre. The new Visitor's Centre is for Conference areas, to
accommodate visiting schoot chil.dren and other conference committees lt witt atso inctude a
70 seat restaurant.
There is a proposat before the State Governmentto devetop 4,300 new homes at Boat Harbour
WHICH ADJOINS THE AMPOL SITE. Given that famities wit[ move into these homes with
perhaps 1 ortwo chiLdren, this woul.d mean the tocal poputation wit[ increase from 2,300 in
Kurnel[ currently to an additional (say on average 3 person per new dwetling at Boat
Harbour) 12,900 residents, tiving immediately adjoiningthe Ampot site.
As a member of the community I am concerned with a respect for SAFETY, HEALTH and tifestyte
of attthe community especiatty myfamity, AND ONGOING LIVELIHOOD OF THE Kamay Botany
Bay Nationat Park and att its species inctuding the migratory birds such as the Godwit and
Ruddy Turnstone (which travels from Ataska to Austratia , stopping once at the Gitbert lstands -
an 1 1 ,20O km iourney), the impact on tourism, which witt further increase the poputous with
the introduction of the proposed ferry service. The ferry servlce witt tink the north head land of
Botany Bay to the South at Kurnett tinking the Sydney cyctewayfrom North Sydney to South
Sydney.
These are my concerns as a resident of Kurnetl:
. lmpact on residentiat tifestyte. This inctudes ramification of heatth of residents and
visitors from potl.utants teach ing out from the proposed ca pping of the site d ue to
weather conditions, namely flooding - which happened two years ago and caused a
huge area potluted by teaching toxin s f rom Am pol into the residential area. Protected
mangroves and waterways were pottuted and kitted and subsequent ctogging of the
naturaI drainage through the sedge grasses. Water coverage of certain areas in
residents' backyards are stitl unrectitied despite one resident goingto the National
Media. She is 93 and has water in most of her backyard knee deep.
IN DECEMBER 2016 THERE WAS A TOURNEDO WITH RECORDED WIN D VELOCIry OF
2'13 KL PER HOUR. The damage was monumentat, many homes destroyed, the
Desatination Ptant had its roof ripped off, lpersonatty noticed atongthat road a section
of armourguard from the road wrapped around a pole like a hairpin- Coutd you imagine
weather conditions such as this ripping through the Ampot site with a proposed
S00megawatt BESS SITT|NG ALONGSIDE 2 MILLION LITRES OF AVIATION FUEL?
There was a BESS FIRE in Moss, USA, WHICH COMBUSTED -lT BURNT FOR DAYS.
THEY EVACUALTED EVERYONE IN THE SURROUNDING 1O MILE RADIUS. No amount of
testing can prevent this, despite any safety corrldors put in place between units,
NOTHING WOULD STOP A COMBUSTION OF 8OO MEGAWATTS OF BESS.
Att poll.utants on the Ampol site shoutd be removed to avoid any possibitity of
contaminmation by teaching and other factors.
No heavy industry shoutd be allowed under any zoning on this site due to the
volatility of the amount of fuel contained on site. No further pollution should take
place amidst existing and future residentiaI development, and protected flora and
fauna area, on this point action shoutd be determined to stop the BESS instatlation
andfurtber hea\Al-indrlstry thsreon. After 75 years of pottution it shoutd be time for
people to be responsibte and also be accountable for decisions made in this
matter.
An independent Geotech report should be undertaken ofthe whote site and al,L
pollutants removed. There shoutd be no rezoning for any heavy industry given my
outline of the surrounding residential and protected areas above surrounding the
Ampot site. NO AMOUNT oF SO-CALLED CAPPING will stop teaching and polluting
of the immediate areas including tiand and sea.
. Capping of this subject area is simpty a BANDAID. lt witl savo Ampol mittions, to
rszone to heavy industry wi[1 make bitlions, and we as resid€nts are left with
ongoing noise, air poltution and heatth ramifications for us and our kids and
visitors. The water tabte pollution and destruction of protected aroas and speci6s
is inevitable.
o lF lT WAS ALL THAT SIMPLE, TO HAVE THE UP0PER HAND ON SAFETY -
o THE EVACUATION OF RESIDENTS YEARS AGO FBOM AN INCIDENT,
o AND ALSO THE RECENT FLOODING 2 YEARS AGO WHICH LED TO POLLUTING AND
CONTAMINATING MARTON PARK/CAPTAIN COOK DRIVE/TORRES STREET
THESE EVENTS WOULD NOTAND SHOULD NOT, HAVE HAPPENED.
I STRONGLY OBJECTTO MOD 7 AND OBJECTTO CAPPING OFTOXIC WASTE. IOBJECT
TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE AMPOL SITE TO HEAVY INDUSTRY.
Yours truly,
KIM GILMORE

Submission Opposing MOD 7 – Kathy Vasic, Kurnell Resident

As a long-term resident of Kurnell, I strongly oppose Ampol’s proposed Modification 7 (MOD 7) – Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation. This proposal is nothing short of a betrayal to the people of Kurnell and a direct threat to the environmental, cultural, and community values of the entire peninsula.

Kurnell is home to Kamay Botany Bay National Park, a state-heritage listed site of national significance. With over $20 million invested in a new visitor centre, tourism is set to thrive – but this will be irreversibly destroyed if the area is allowed to become an expanded industrial zone. Ampol’s plan threatens to turn the gateway to one of Sydney’s most iconic coastal and historic locations into a permanent industrial wasteland.

The risks to the surrounding waterways and to Botany Bay are too great. The underground aquifers and sensitive coastal systems are already compromised. Further disturbance under MOD 7 places the health of our community and fragile ecosystems at serious risk. Ampol is self-regulating its remediation works, and the lack of independent oversight has left the community exposed. This is unacceptable. Ampol must be held to the original terms of remediation under the Australian Oil Refining Act – which clearly stated that the land must be fully cleaned, not capped and abandoned.

The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report shows that hundreds of species, including critically endangered flora and fauna, inhabit this area. The green and golden bell frog and the giant burrowing frog are known to frequent the site – their future now hangs in the balance.

This is a backward step for Sydney. Kurnell was beginning to heal after decades of pollution and industrial damage. MOD 7 will destroy that progress and ruin the land forever. I condemn Ampol’s plan and urge the Department to reject MOD 7 completely.

I’m a resident of Cronulla and am opposed to Ampol not remediating the site of contamination and toxins. I believe that the toxins should be removed due to the risk of it entering the water table that then could affect wild life bird life and the fishing grounds of Botany Bay and Bate Bay. If Ampol are allowed to cover this site the toxins are forever locked into the ground and risk for all future generations. if Ampol wish to develop this site all chemicals and toxins should be 100 percent removed.

Objection to Ampol’s Proposal for Modification of Kurnell Terminal (Mod 7)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong objection to Ampol's proposal for the modification of the Kurnell Terminal (referred to as "Mod 7"). While I am not a resident of the area, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts of this project on the environment, local residents, and the broader community—both now and in the future.
1. Environmental Risks and Sustainability
The Kurnell Terminal is situated in a highly sensitive coastal region with significant ecological value. The proposal to modify and expand the terminal poses serious risks to local wildlife, water quality, and the broader natural environment. With increased fuel storage capacity and higher throughput, the likelihood of accidents, including spills and leaks, grows exponentially. The surrounding marine and terrestrial ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to such disasters, which could result in long-term damage to local biodiversity.
Additionally, the environmental footprint of fossil fuel infrastructure like the Kurnell Terminal contributes to broader climate change issues. Given the growing global consensus on the urgent need for decarbonization and the transition to renewable energy sources, it is troubling that the proposal focuses on expanding fossil fuel infrastructure rather than investing in cleaner, more sustainable alternatives. This is a step backward in terms of our responsibility to future generations and our ability to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
2. Public Health and Safety Concerns
Though I am not a resident of the area, I recognize that the Kurnell Terminal’s location near populated areas—including residential neighbourhoods, schools, and recreational spaces—exposes local communities to a range of health and safety risks. These include potential exposure to hazardous emissions such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as well as the ever-present risk of fire or explosion in a facility that stores large quantities of fuel.
Even a small accident could have catastrophic effects on both human health and the environment. The consequences of a major disaster at a fuel terminal could be far-reaching, causing harm to residents, wildlife, and local infrastructure. It is crucial that this proposal is assessed rigorously for safety risks, and that the public is given confidence that appropriate measures are in place to protect people and the environment.
3. Impact on Local Communities and Future Generations
While I am not personally impacted by the immediate changes to the terminal, I am concerned about the long-term consequences for both current residents and future generations. The modification of the terminal would increase the frequency and scale of fuel movements, and with it, the likelihood of hazardous incidents. The increase in fuel storage and throughput would also exacerbate noise and air pollution, potentially reducing the quality of life for local residents.
Moreover, the local Indigenous communities, whose ancestral lands may be affected, must be meaningfully consulted. The Kurnell region holds historical and cultural significance, and the decision to expand fossil fuel infrastructure should not ignore the rights and concerns of Indigenous peoples. Their heritage, as well as their present and future well-being, must be given utmost consideration.
4. Missed Opportunity for Sustainable Energy Transition
It is deeply concerning that this proposal appears to prioritize the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when the world is increasingly shifting toward renewable energy solutions. Australia, as a nation, must take bold steps to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and support the growth of sustainable energy technologies such as solar, wind, and hydrogen. By modifying the Kurnell Terminal, Ampol is not only contributing to environmental degradation but also undermining efforts to transition to a cleaner, greener future.
This is a missed opportunity to align the project with the future energy needs of the nation. Rather than investing in infrastructure that supports outdated energy sources, Ampol should be considering how its resources can be redirected toward renewable energy projects that benefit both the environment and the community in the long term.
5. Lack of Adequate Public Consultation
Finally, I am concerned that the consultation process for this proposal has not been sufficiently transparent or inclusive. The public, especially those who live near the terminal or who are affected by the environmental consequences, should have the opportunity to voice their concerns and engage meaningfully in the decision-making process. The stakes are high, and decisions that affect the future of the community and the environment should be made with full participation from all stakeholders, not just from corporate interests.
________________________________________
Conclusion
I urge the relevant authorities to reconsider this proposal in its current form. The potential environmental damage, risks to public health and safety, and the missed opportunity to align with a sustainable energy future are issues that cannot be overlooked. I believe it is critical that we protect the environment for future generations, while also ensuring the well-being of current residents and communities.
I respectfully request that the concerns outlined above be fully addressed before any approvals are granted for the modification of the Kurnell Terminal.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,

Brendon Deguara

Please see image from Google Earth showing damage to Mangroves. This will likely exacerbate if Mod 7 is allowed to pass and Ampol is allowed to redirect Oily Water Services.

⸻

I strongly object to MOD 7 Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation due to its potential negative impact on the surrounding environment, community well-being, and heritage value. The proposed changes appear to prioritise infrastructure over the preservation of natural and community spaces, and may increase noise, traffic, and pollution in nearby residential areas. There is also insufficient evidence that adequate consultation has been conducted with the local community, and the long-term impacts remain unclear. I urge the Department to reconsider this modification and ensure that genuine community concerns are addressed with transparency and integrity.

As a local resident of Kurnell, I am writing to formally object to the MOD-7 Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation proposal and the broader plans for the Kurnell Energy and Industry Precinct. While I support the need to remediate legacy industrial sites and I am not opposed to the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), I am deeply concerned that this project is laying the groundwork for a long-term expansion of heavy industry in an area that is increasingly residential and environmentally sensitive.

It is important to acknowledge that the Kurnell Terminal was formerly part of a large oil refinery, which was dismantled in 2014. Since then, the site has operated as a fuel import and storage terminal. The MOD-7 proposal seeks to remove outdated infrastructure and remediate contaminated land — a necessary and welcome step. However, the accompanying plans to subdivide the site and establish a permanent industrial precinct risk re-entrenching the area as a heavy industrial zone, rather than transitioning it toward more balanced or community-compatible uses.

My primary concern is the proximity of this industrial activity to residential areas. Kurnell is not just an industrial site — it is a community. Families live here, children go to school here, and people enjoy the natural beauty of nearby Botany Bay and Kamay National Park. Expanding heavy industry so close to homes and recreational areas is incompatible with the wellbeing of residents. The long-term impacts of increased traffic, noise, and potential environmental hazards have not been adequately addressed in the planning documents.

I also recognise that due to the site’s contamination history, it may not be feasible to convert the land into parkland or light residential use without significant restoration. However, this should not be used as justification to lock the site into permanent heavy industrial use. There are other possibilities — such as low-impact commercial development, conservation buffers, or community infrastructure — that could provide value without compounding the environmental and social burdens already borne by this area.

The proposal also lacks a clear commitment to community benefit. There is no indication that any part of the site will be made accessible to the public or rehabilitated for shared use. The entire precinct appears to be reserved for industrial development, with no meaningful offset for the local community. This is a missed opportunity to restore balance between development and livability.

I am also concerned about the precedent this sets. By subdividing and rezoning the site for industrial use, the government is effectively committing the area to a future of heavy infrastructure, with limited flexibility to adapt to changing community needs or environmental priorities. Once this path is taken, it will be difficult to reverse — even if public opposition grows or environmental impacts worsen.

Finally, I question whether the broader community has been meaningfully consulted. The technical complexity of the documents and the limited accessibility of the consultation process make it difficult for everyday residents to engage. I urge the government to extend consultation, provide clearer summaries, and genuinely consider alternative futures for the site.

In conclusion, while I support the remediation of the site and do not oppose the BESS project, I strongly object to the broader industrial expansion of the Kurnell site. I urge the government to reconsider the long-term vision for this area, prioritise community wellbeing, and explore alternatives that do not re-entrench heavy industry in a residential and environmentally sensitive region.

I have recently bought and moved into a home in Kurnell, I have lived within the Sutherland Shire for most of my life, having grown up in Menai. Kurnell has always been a nice suburb but had the stigma attached to it from the refinery. The announcement the refinery was closing it’s operation down in 2014 was a good thing, not only on an appearance level, but the smell has gone as has the giant flame that was visible from all the way from Sylvania at night.
I strongly oppose the BESS batteries to be allowed to be placed within the confines of the Ampol site, it seems ludicrous for it to even be tabled as a somewhat intelligent idea. There is one road in one road out, the site borders Kamay National Park and is currently being utilised to store fuel. The site is also close to a flight path. There seems to be absolutely no regard to the safety of the environment or the residents.
I also strongly oppose the motion of MOD 7 to passed, what an absolute joke, the NSW government has spent millions of dollars upgrading Kamay Bay National Park facilities to be enjoyed by everyone, keeping in line to retain our national heritage along with the indigenous. It seems to be a waste considering all of the efforts of conservation and preservation to protect everything for generations to come, wildlife and plantlife seems to be completely disregarded with Ampol and their idea to permanently contaminate the earth. If it was any other private land owner there would be no way this motion would be acceptable.
A BESS battery farm within range of 750 million litres of fuel storage does not seem like a good idea, and the idea of Ampol not required to remediate soil seems even worse. The impacts it will have on the safety of residents and the implications on nature will not be reversible. Please do not approve any of the above, it’s not only dangerous but flat out stupid. Anyone who votes a yes on this should hang their heads in shame.

As a Sutherland Shire resident for 61 years and a home owner in Kurnell for the past 4 years I strongly disagree with the project. We purchased a family property in Kurnell for multi generational living to enable our adult children the opportunity to get into the housing market. I feel not enough consideration has been given to the Kurnell residential community in relation to how this will affect their housing investments. We are regular income earners and have worked very hard to achieve this family goal. I have read a lot of information about the proposed project and the impact that this project will have on the environment, flora and fauna but has anyone documented any information on how this will effect people's property values. This is very disappointing and I think more consideration should be given to the people of the community of an area that is full of history and native flora and fauna. I am no professional essay writer but am very concerned about how this project with effect not only the community but most importantly my family. We are truly heartbroken.