MOD 7 Infrastructure consolidation and remediation

We purchased our family home in Kurnell following Caltex's announcement to shut down the refinery, drawn by the promise of proper environmental cleanup and the transformation of this historically significant area into a safer, cleaner community. Over the years, we've witnessed Kurnell evolve from a small, sleepy industrial town into a vibrant, family-friendly suburb where parents chose to raise their children near beautiful beaches and away from industrial pollution.

Our commitment to this community was tested in December 2015 when our house was completely destroyed by the record-breaking tornado that devastated Kurnell. With wind speeds of 213 km/h - the fastest ever recorded in NSW history - the tornado ripped apart 25-35 properties, overturned trucks near the refinery, and left our community without power or sewerage for days. Yet we rebuilt our home and our lives here because we believed in Kurnell's post-industrial future and the government's promise of proper environmental remediation.

We strongly oppose Ampol's Modification 7 proposal for the following critical reasons:
Kurnell's greatest vulnerability is having only ONE road in and out - Captain Cook Drive. The proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) next to fuel storage facilities creates what experts call "risk stacking" - combining multiple industrial hazards that exponentially increase disaster risks.

If a BESS fire or explosion blocks our single access road with toxic smoke and debris, we face an impossible emergency scenario:
Parents cannot reach their children at the local kindergarten and primary school. Teachers become responsible for young lives with no evacuation route and no guarantee of emergency service access. Children are most vulnerable to toxic fumes from lithium battery fires, which release hydrogen fluoride and other deadly gases.

The new Sydney Dogs & Cats Home, opening in 2025 directly next to the proposed industrial facilities on Joseph Banks Drive, will house thousands of vulnerable animals including dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and birds. These animals cannot self-evacuate and depend entirely on staff for rescue. During a BESS fire emergency, staff would face an impossible choice between their own safety and saving thousands of trapped animals, while emergency services are simultaneously overwhelmed trying to reach trapped children.

Residents, including elderly and disabled community members, would be completely cut off from medical care, emergency services, and evacuation assistance. The 2015 tornado demonstrated how quickly our infrastructure fails under extreme conditions - adding industrial fire risks to natural disaster vulnerability is unconscionable.

Ampol's track record proves they cannot be trusted with permanent waste containment:
In April 2022, Ampol's wastewater treatment plant failed during heavy rain, initially claiming only 700 litres spilled. Later investigation revealed the actual spill was 9,200 litres - 13 times greater than reported. Residents found "black liquid stinking of petrol bubbling up in their sinks" and "rivers of petrol flowing down their streets overnight." Children rode bikes through contaminated water and trained on polluted football fields for days while the company downplayed the severity.

Ampol admitted they "missed a bit" during the 2014 refinery cleanup, meaning contaminated waste had been sitting undetected for eight years. This proves their cleanup standards are inadequate and their monitoring unreliable.
The 1979 World Encouragement oil spill released 95 tonnes of crude oil into Botany Bay, killing 4.4 hectares of mangroves and requiring rescue of 50 oiled birds. This demonstrates the ongoing environmental vulnerability of our location.

Mod 7's permanent on-site containment creates ongoing health threats, particularly for children:
PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos will remain permanently on-site rather than being properly removed. PFAS is linked to cancer, liver damage, and immune system suppression. It accumulates in the body and never breaks down. Asbestos causes mesothelioma and lung cancer. Children's developing brains and organs are most susceptible to permanent damage from these toxins.

The 2015 tornado demonstrated how extreme weather affects Kurnell. Climate change increases the frequency of severe storms. Capped contamination will inevitably leak during flooding, spreading toxins throughout our community and into Botany Bay, affecting drinking water, marine life, and recreational areas where our children play.

Industrial operations will create ongoing air pollution from dust, vapors, and potential accidents, affecting respiratory health across our community.

Botany Bay Ecosystem: Our location hosts threatened migratory birds and sensitive wetland ecosystems. Contamination leaks threaten these protected species and their habitats.

National Heritage: This is Captain Cook's historic landing site where European settlement of Australia began in 1770. Converting this nationally significant location into a permanent toxic waste containment site desecrates our founding heritage and eliminates any possibility of appropriate commemorative or recreational use.

Heavy industrial zoning (E5) means the land can never be rezoned for community use, parks, or heritage purposes. This eliminates future generations' right to proper land use after contamination is addressed.

Ampol will monitor their own capped waste without independent oversight. The 2022 spill proved their monitoring is inadequate. No independent audits or enforceable deadlines mean no accountability for public safety.
Unlike the original cleanup plan with specific deadlines, Mod 7 allows indefinite monitoring and maintenance, creating endless uncertainty about site safety and community health.

Permanent contamination and industrial zoning will damage property values, affecting our families' largest investments.
Industrial stigma will harm local eco-tourism businesses that depend on Kurnell's natural beauty and historical significance.
The proposal creates ongoing conflict between industrial profits and family safety, dividing our previously united community.

We urge you to reject Modification 7 and require Ampol to proceed with the original plan requiring:
1. Complete off-site removal of all contaminated materials, PFAS, asbestos, and hydrocarbon waste
2. Independent environmental audits with enforceable deadlines and penalties
3. Comprehensive health monitoring of community members, particularly children
4. Rezoning opportunities after proper cleanup to allow community and heritage use
5. Alternative industrial locations for BESS that don't threaten communities with single-road access

After surviving the 2015 tornado and rebuilding our lives in Kurnell, we refuse to accept permanent contamination and industrial risks as our community's future. We invested in this area based on promises of proper cleanup and safer living conditions.
Mod 7 betrays that trust and sacrifices our children's health, our community's safety, and our nation's heritage for corporate profits. The combination of single-road access, vulnerable populations including schoolchildren and thousands of shelter animals, Ampol's proven environmental failures, and permanent toxic contamination creates an unacceptable risk that no responsible government should approve.

Our community deserves the genuine cleanup and bright future we were promised, not industrial profit disguised as environmental management.

Re: Objection – SSD‑5544‑MOD 7 “Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation”
Ampol Kurnell Terminal, 2 Solander Street, Kurnell NSW 2231

Dear Secretary,

I write to object to MOD 7 for infrastructure consolidation, removal of redundant assets, and remediation at the Ampol Kurnell Terminal (exhibited 10–25 July 2025).

My key concerns:

Environmental & Water‑Quality Risk
Past incidents—such as the April 2022 spill of over 9,000 L of oily water—have demonstrated the risk of contamination to wetlands and residential areas. Disturbing remediated land may re‑mobilise pollutants without strong protections.

Inadequate Monitoring & Transparency
The MOD 7 documentation lacks clear requirements for independent audits, frequent soil/groundwater testing, and public reporting beyond basic compliance, eroding community trust.

Lack of Genuine Community Engagement
Community feedback was limited to past projects. MOD 7 lacks current pre‑decision engagement such as briefings or forums specific to its scope.

Future Use for Polluting Industrial Infrastructure (e.g., BESS)
Alarmingly, Ampol is investigating an 800 MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) on this site
cleanpower.org
+15
ampol.com.au
+15
assets.contentstack.io
+15
planningportal.nsw.gov.au
savekurnell.com.au
couriermail.com.au
+1
wired.com
+1
. Large-scale lithium-ion BESS projects carry risks of thermal runaway, fires, toxic runoff and pollutants (including cobalt/nickel leachate)
timesunion.com
+1
wired.com
+1
. The project area is thus vulnerable to conversion for hazardous industrial infrastructure. Without restricting future uses, MOD 7 could simply clear the way for more polluting activities with serious environmental, fire-safety, and health implications.

I therefore request that approval of MOD 7 be contingent on:

Real-time environmental monitoring with trigger limits and rapid emergency response.

Independent third-party audits with full public disclosure.

Clear prohibitions against future repurposing for industrial uses such as BESS, unless subject to full EIS and community consultation.

Dedicated community information session outlining remediation outcomes, timelines, hazards, and future land use restrictions.

I lodge this objection to ensure the remediation is truly final, environmentally safe, and not a pretext for more industrial contamination.

As a long-term resident of Kurnell and a parent of teenage children, I wish to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed Mod7 redevelopment.

While I acknowledge the importance of future planning, this proposal appears to serve primarily as a way for Ampol to reduce the cost of fully cleaning and remediating the site — rather than delivering any genuine benefit to the community or respecting the environmental and historical value of the land.

Kurnell is a place of immense significance — not just as the landing site of Captain Cook, but as a deeply important area for Aboriginal people. This land holds painful and powerful history, and efforts are currently underway to acknowledge this truth through the construction of a new Aboriginal Cultural Centre in Kamay Botany Bay National Park. It is deeply contradictory and, frankly, disrespectful to be investing public funds into a space intended to honour First Nations people, while simultaneously allowing further industrialisation of the surrounding area — land that was already severely impacted by Ampol's past operations.

As a nation, we are committed to truth-telling and reconciliation. This development proposal flies in the face of that commitment. It sends the message that, despite our words and symbols of respect, profit continues to come before people, culture, and country.

Furthermore, the Mod7 proposal poses serious risks to the safety and wellbeing of Kurnell residents. With only one road in and out of the peninsula, the introduction or expansion of hazardous industrial activity creates a potential disaster scenario in the event of fire, chemical incident, or any other emergency. It is simply not a responsible or safe location for this kind of development, and it puts every resident — including families like mine — at unnecessary risk.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get things right — to protect what remains, to repair what has been damaged, and to deliver a respectful, nature-based redevelopment that aligns with both the historical significance and the future aspirations of this special place. We should be making amends, not compounding the harm.

I urge you to reject the Mod7 proposal and instead work with the community, First Nations representatives, environmental groups and heritage advisors to create a vision for Kurnell that future generations can be proud of.

I am requesting an extension of time, longer than 2 weeks, for the community to read a highly technical 400 page document and make an informed submission.
I am also requesting that Ampol conduct proper and appropriate engagement with the local Kurnell and the broader Shire communities.
I am also concerned that out of date Australian Rainfall and Runoff Guide has been used to estimate the overland flood risk of MOD 7 in an area that is known to be flood affected

1) The owner of the property (or Lessor) would certainly disapprove of the burial of toxic and contaminated waste being buried, rather than FULLY remediated, on the site as eventually the lease will expire and the owners would be left with a contaminated site.
2) I actually own my block of land and it would be criminal if I was to bury contamination (especially the type of toxic product Ampol are proposing to bury), regardless of the quality of containment proposed. Notwithstanding the abscence of certainty that nothing would affect the surrounding environment including waterways. Point: The recent water overflow from Ampol spreading contaminents to suburban areas and watercourses which occured despite supposed mitigation systems.
3) Having lived in Kurnell for nearly 67 years, I have witnessed on numerous occasions, restricted or complete closure to road access to and from Kurnell due to incidents either on or near the road and sometimes as a result of industrial facilities expelling toxic and hazardous products. In the event of a hazardous situation it could prevent escape options to the residents and equally, if not more perilous, the accessibility of Emergency services to attend. Alternate routes NEED to be offered/constructed.
4) The pristine environment surrounding the site including the historically valuable "Kamay" Botany Bay National Park in addition to the village of Kurnell residents have endured decades of exposure to industrial manufacturing and peripheral industry and its shortcomings, such as oil spills, pungent fumes, fluid pump drones and whistles all night and excessive truck movements, to name a few. When does it become FAIR for this area and it's residents instead of always being about economic decisions.
5) I do not have access to the original lease arrangement between the Owners of the land (I believe it to be the HOLT family) and Ampol/Caltex (the lessee) but my understanding was that the accepted industry for the site was Refining Oil and its ancillaries. This proposal goes far beyond that specification and if approved would open the door to many and varied industries which may not be controlled as well as a single entity operating under more stringent controls and auditing.
6) The term "remediation" actually means "to reverse or stop environmental damage". Burying contaminated waste on the site where it was produced is neither reversing nor stopping environmental damage as the hole they put it in is actually still in the environment and will remain there (providing the containment is adequate under any and all conditions) for future populations to deal with, given Ampol would have wiped their hands of it by then!

I am a 73-year-old pensioner who has lived in Kurnell for 40 years. I raised my children here, and now all four of my grandchildren are being raised here too. This is not just where I live — it’s my legacy. My home is all I have to leave them. It is their inheritance. So I am writing to strongly object to MOD 7, not just for myself, but for my whole family.

I object because of what MOD 7 means for the future of our community: increased pollution, long-term contamination, and dangerous risks to our health and environment. We already experience severe weather — heavy rains, strong winds — and we know how vulnerable this area is. Kurnell is out on the point. We get it all. And with one road in and one road out, any kind of emergency here could be catastrophic.

I worry deeply about what will seep into our waters — and into our bodies. MOD 7 plans to leave toxic chemicals capped and buried, not removed. That is not real clean-up. It’s a shortcut. It’s not good enough for my children and grandchildren who swim in those waters and play on that land.

Instead of turning Kurnell into a dumping ground for industry, why not restore the land properly or allow it to be used for clean, safe housing?

I object to MOD 7 because I want my family to be safe, healthy, and proud of the home I leave behind — not stuck living in the shadow of contamination.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO REMEDIATION WORKS IN AND AROUND THE AMPOL SITE AT KURNELL.
AS WE ARE ALL WELL AWARE OF THE SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT BEING THE LEGACY OF OVER 50 YEARS OF OIL REFINING AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES TO THE KURNELL PENINSULAR WE THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO ASSUME THE MULTINATIONAL GIANT BEING AMPOL WOULD AT THE VERY LEAST CLEAN UP THE DISGRACEFUL ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHY CAUSED BY DECADES OF VANDALISM TO A ONCE PRISTINE ENVIRONMENT.
IT APPEARS THE RAMSAR TOWRA POINT WETLANDS ARE NOT BEING CONSIDERED IN ANY WAY AT ALL LET ALONE THE THOUSANDS OF AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS OF THE KURNELL COMMUNITY WHO HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A FOOLISH MINORITY.
IF AMPOL PLANS TO OPENLY AND HONESTLY PROPOSE TO THE COMMUNITY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SO CALLED "ENERGY HUB" THEY SHOULD FIRSTLY OPENLY AND HONESTLY CLEAN UP THE CONTAMINATION STILL PRESENT AT THEIR SITE AND FUTHERMORE DEMONSTRATE MORE TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC ON THE REDIRECTING OF CONTAMINATED STORMWATER INTO THE FRAGILE ECOSYSTEM OF QIBRAY BAY AND BOTANY BAY.
SINCERELY DISSAPPOINTED
MR NOEL BERRY
PROUD RESIDENT AND SUPPORTER OF KURNELL FOR OVER 40 YEARS.

I am a Kurnell resident and I am 11 years old, and I have lived in Kurnell my whole life.

I’m writing this because I’m really worried about MOD 7 and what it will mean for my future. I love my home. It’s where all my best memories are — like riding my bike, watching the sunrises, and playing outside with my family. But now, I feel scared. The land zoning changes and industrial plans make me feel like I might lose my home one day. What if we have to leave? What if my family ends up on the streets? I don’t want to lose my childhood to big factories and chemicals.

In 2022, our house and street got flooded. It wasn’t just a little water — it was deep and smelly, and I felt trapped inside. I remember thinking, “Is this just a flood, or is something worse happening?” I couldn’t go outside. I couldn’t breathe fresh air. It was awful.

I’ve heard MOD 7 means the pollution under the ground will just be left there, covered up. That’s not fair to kids like me. It feels like you’re leaving the mess for us to deal with when we grow up. That’s not right. We didn’t make this problem, but we’re the ones who will live with it.

I care about the animals too. The birds, fish, crabs, and turtles belong here — not the big companies. I’ve noticed that even since the oil spill, there are fewer fish. If we keep polluting the water and land, where will they go? Where will we go?

Please, don’t let MOD 7 happen. Protect Kurnell for kids like me. We just want to grow up safe, healthy, and surrounded by nature — not toxins and factories.

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.

My family has called Kurnell home for over 21 years. It’s where we have lived with deep respect for the local environment and community. This isn’t just a postcode it’s our history, our future, and the place we care most about. What’s being proposed under Mod 7 disregards that entirely.

The plan to leave dangerous contaminants like PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos buried on site covered rather than removed is not a genuine clean-up. It’s 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 particularly as climate change brings more frequent and severe weather events that could disturb these materials.

Even more troubling is the lack of any fixed timeline or truly independent oversight. Mod 7 would hand responsibility to Ampol to monitor their own site indefinitely, with no clear obligation to fully remediate the land or make it safe in the long term. Ampols record on enviromental issues is very poor and not worthy of respect.Once this plan is approved, that land is essentially locked into industrial use forever cutting off any future potential for community-friendly or green space.

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 and broken promises.

Please choose long-term community wellbeing over short-term corporate convenience.

This project is not for a residential area and will impact the entire suburb of Kurnell.

To the Department of Planning and Environment,

I am writing to express my strong objection to MOD 7 – Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation.

My family and I have lived in Kurnell for five years. We chose this area for its natural beauty, coastal access, and flat open spaces — not just for lifestyle, but for necessity. Our son uses a wheelchair, and Kurnell’s flat terrain allows us to take him outside safely and frequently. Meanwhile, our older son is an avid recreational fisherman who enjoys the calm waters of Botany Bay (Gamay). However, we are increasingly concerned that these waters are no longer safe — and that MOD 7 will further endanger our environment and our health.

Scientific evidence from the Sydney Institute of Marine Science’s 2022 report Science of Gamay confirms that the bay is in a fragile and declining ecological state. Among its key findings:

Contamination in sediments from Gamay and the Georges River is extensive. The bay contains heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and phosphates, often exceeding contamination levels in other Australian estuaries.

These pollutants have already been detected in local fish and invertebrates, posing a direct threat to seafood safety.

Stormwater and urban runoff rapidly carry pollutants into the bay during rain events, triggering algal blooms and introducing harmful bacteria into marine sediments.

The report warns that Gamay sits at the edge of an ecological tipping point: while chlorophyll-a levels technically meet NSW thresholds, they do so right at the threshold for degradation, meaning the system is "at best" only slightly disturbed and may shift into a moderately disturbed state with little additional pressure.

Dredging and reclamation projects — like those in MOD 7’s legacy — have already caused serious damage. These activities resuspend toxic sediments, destroy seagrass beds, and permanently alter circulation, reducing natural flushing of the bay and worsening water quality.

MOD 7 proposes to consolidate and cap contamination rather than remove it — effectively sealing in a toxic legacy and placing our community, environment, and future generations at risk. This is not true remediation. This is containment for corporate convenience, and it does not meet the standard of care our community deserves.

The proposed water treatment plan outlined in MOD 7 is insufficient to protect human or ecosystem health, especially in light of the existing, compounding threats to Gamay. We are already seeing the effects: fish warnings, declining catch numbers, and visible ecological stress. For families like mine — who rely on this area not only for recreation but also for access to nature, mobility, and wellbeing — this is deeply personal.

I implore the Department to consider the weight of scientific evidence and the human impact of this decision. MOD 7 is not a solution — it is a dangerous compromise.

I respectfully urge you to reject MOD 7. Gamay deserves restoration, not containment. Our community deserves clean water, not risk management.

I strongly object to the proposed MOD 7 modification by Ampol, which seeks to avoid fully remediating redundant industrial land in Kurnell and instead subdivide, lease or sell it as industrial land. This approach demonstrates a clear disregard for environmental responsibility, public safety, and transparency.

After reviewing the Surface Water section of the MOD 7 documentation, I am alarmed by its outdated and incomplete methodology. The report relies on the 2019 version of the Australian Rainfall and Runoff Quality Guide, despite the release of Version 4.2 in August 2024, which incorporates critical climate change data. This oversight renders the flood risk assessment inadequate and out-of-step with current standards. Additionally, the report references the 2009 Kurnell Flood Study, while Council has already commissioned a new study using the updated 2024 guidelines. It is completely inappropriate for MOD 7 to proceed based on outdated science and modelling.

Moreover, the report highlights potential contamination risks to Marton Park and Quibray Bay wetlands through surface water discharge. Given the sandy soils and known interaction between surface and groundwater in the area, this is a major concern. The report references a Marton Park Wetland Management Plan and mentions water quality monitoring, yet no public water quality data appears to be available. Without access to this data, the community cannot trust that the environment—or our health—is being adequately protected.

Following the 2022 Ampol diesel spill and the devastating mangrove dieback in Quibray Bay, there has been no public release of a remediation strategy or long-term environmental assessment. The ecological impacts remain unresolved, and there is no explanation as to how MOD 7 will prevent further contamination events. Expecting the community to accept this modification without full disclosure is unreasonable and irresponsible.

Community engagement around MOD 7 has been severely lacking. Screenshots within the proposal confirm that Sutherland Shire Council was informed, yet A Ward Councillors were never briefed. Ampol’s record of “engagement” with residents is tokenistic at best. There is no evidence that the technical risks and long-term implications of this modification were meaningfully communicated to the community.

Kurnell is not an industrial dumping ground. Ampol has profited for decades while pushing pollution and risk onto residents. MOD 7 is a shortcut for Ampol to walk away from its mess and repackage it as a future industrial zone—without fixing the damage it caused.

This modification must be rejected until there is:

Full site remediation, not capping and covering,

Proper environmental risk assessment based on the 2024 guidelines,

Transparent community consultation with independent technical oversight,

A detailed explanation of how future contamination will be prevented,

And public accountability for the 2022 diesel spill.

Kurnell deserves restoration, not more risk.

Sincerely,
Liam Casey

As a long time kurnell resident I am disappointed with Ampol and the BESS development application. As a community we have suffered for many years with aircraft noise, oil refinery, carbon black,sand mining and land fill at our back door. We don't want this development to go ahead. It has no benefit to our community, why destroy this beautiful peninsular, national Park, mangroves and wildlife. Why spend money upgrading our national park and build a ferry wharf and then let this go ahead after all this is the birth place of the nation and deserves better. We the residents object to this development please put a stop to it.

Project: SSD-5544-Mod-7 (Kurnell)

As a resident of Kurnell for the past six years, I am absolutely horrified by the proposed changes in MOD 7. I moved to this beautiful coastal village to be close to the sea, the sand, and the peaceful lifestyle that this area offers. Since moving here, I’ve become an avid gardener and have had the privilege of raising my grandchildren in a community that feels safe and connected to nature.

What Ampol is proposing through MOD 7 feels like a complete betrayal of this community. Rather than properly removing the toxic contamination left behind from decades of industrial activity, they are proposing to cap it and leave it. This is not remediation—it’s neglect.

I am deeply concerned about what this will mean for the long-term health of myself, my grandchildren, and every resident of Kurnell. Living near buried contamination is not safe, especially when that contamination is not being removed or managed transparently. We already deal with regular pollution and ongoing dust, fumes, and noise. This proposal feels like more of the same—profit over people.

Ampol has a social responsibility to clean up the mess they’ve made. The people of Kurnell have lived with industrial damage for long enough. It’s time to heal this land and restore it—not pave the way for more industrial development.

Kurnell should be turned into a sanctuary, not a dumping ground for toxic waste and corporate short-cuts.

I strongly oppose MOD 7.

To Whom It May Concern,

I'm writing as a resident of Kurnell to object to the proposed modification to the Ampol Kurnell Terminal (MOD-7). I’ve reviewed the plans and I’m extremely concerned about the long-term risks this poses to the community, the environment, and the local wildlife.

I don’t think this modification goes far enough to ensure the health and safety of those of us who live nearby. The idea that some contaminants will just be left on site and covered over is really unsettling. As someone who plans to raise a family here, I worry about what’s being left behind and whether future generations will be the ones who end up dealing with the consequences.

There also seems to be very little information about how this will be monitored or managed in the long term. Who is checking that contamination doesn’t leak into the groundwater? Who is making sure we’re informed if something does go wrong? I don’t feel confident that there are strong enough safeguards in place, and I don’t believe we, as residents, have been properly consulted or kept in the loop.

The environmental impact is another major concern. Kurnell is home to some really special wildlife, and even if the vegetation being removed isn’t “listed,” it still supports local ecosystems. I feel like this project is being pushed through with minimal accountability, and once again, the local community and environment are being treated as an afterthought.

We’ve seen in the past how quickly things can go wrong with industrial activity in this area. It only takes one incident whether it’s a fire, a storm, or a containment failure to put people and wildlife at serious risk. And with only one road in and out of Kurnell, our options in an emergency are limited.

At the very least, I think this modification needs stronger conditions, including:

Full removal of contaminants where possible not just covering them up.

Independent environmental monitoring, with reports made public.

More transparency and regular updates for local residents.

Clear emergency and risk management plans.

A real commitment to restoring local habitats, not just ticking a compliance box.

I love living in Kurnell, it’s a unique and beautiful part of Sydney. But it’s also a fragile area, and decisions like this have long-lasting consequences. I urge you to reconsider this proposal in its current form and push for a solution that truly protects our health, our environment, and the future of our community.

Thanks,
Rachel Massey
Kurnell Resident

After 60 years of operating a refinery, the toxic residue should be removed and not just covered up. The recent escape of pollution from the site when the bunded containment failed is a further reason why such material should be removed from a residential area.

When the decision was made the close the refinery, every effort was made to deconstruct the refinery and clean the site up but this should have included the toxic materials including highly toxic PFAS waste.

The plan to put a BESS activity on site on top of such hazardous material is also a dangerous plan. The possibility of a fire in an area next to fuel storage without adequate separation is not in any one interests and does it consider the area or residents. They have not considered less hazardous battery types.

Ampol’s plan to use the site to mix sustainable aviation fuel also creates a hazardous environment without proper environmental and safety measures in place.

Ampol have taken advantage of the residents of Kurnell since the closure of the refinery under the cover of corporate greed. The sale of the land on Prince Charles Parade is a prime example. This should have been redone to residential or open parkland before sale. Their greed was to take the money and leave the residents with the problem.

To Whom It May Concern,

Re: Objection to Modification 7 – Proposed Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation of the Refinery Site, Kurnell

I am writing as a resident of Kurnell and, most importantly, as a mother deeply concerned about the future health and safety of our community and environment. While I understand the need for remediation and responsible management of the former refinery site, I strongly object to Modification 7 in its current form due to the potential environmental, health, and long-term impacts it poses.

1. Environmental Impact on the Bay and Surrounding Ecosystem
Kurnell is a unique and sensitive coastal environment, home to endangered species and fragile ecosystems, including the Botany Bay wetlands and marine habitats. Modification 7 raises serious concerns about contamination, both during the remediation process and in the long-term stability of the site. The risk of pollutants leaching into Botany Bay or nearby wetlands is unacceptable. Any mismanagement could have devastating effects on marine life, fishing, and recreational water use – all of which are central to our community and local economy.

2. Air Quality and Health Risks
As a mother, I am particularly worried about the potential for dust, toxic emissions, and other airborne pollutants released during the remediation and infrastructure consolidation works. Children, including my own, are far more vulnerable to respiratory issues and long-term health problems caused by exposure to contaminants. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not provide adequate assurances regarding the management of these risks, nor does it clearly outline how the community will be monitored or protected during construction and remediation phases.

3. Lack of Transparency and Community Engagement
The modification proposal appears to lack sufficient consultation with local residents. We, as a community, have the right to fully understand the risks and to have a say in how this site is remediated, especially considering the legacy of pollution and industrial activity already associated with it. There must be clear communication about the materials to be handled, how contamination will be contained, and the ongoing monitoring that will occur after remediation.

4. Long-Term Site Management and Accountability
Even after remediation, the site could continue to pose risks if not properly maintained. I fear that future generations may bear the consequences of incomplete or rushed remediation. What guarantees are being made that this land will be rendered safe, and who will take responsibility if future contamination or structural issues emerge? As a parent, I want assurance that my children will not inherit a toxic legacy.

5. Alternatives and Sustainable Practices
The proposal does not adequately explore safer, less intrusive alternatives or methods for site consolidation and remediation. Given the sensitivity of the surrounding environment, the precautionary principle should apply: if there is any doubt about the safety or effectiveness of the proposed works, they should not proceed until a safer and more sustainable approach is identified.
Conclusion

Our children deserve a safe, clean, and thriving environment. I ask decision-makers to prioritise the health of our community and the protection of Kurnell’s precious natural environment over industrial convenience.

I am writing to express my objection to the project of Mod 7 for the proposed infrastructure consolidation and remediation at the former refinery site in Kurnell.
I have a young family and have lived in Kurnell since 2019. We love the small town ‘feel’ that Kurnell creates with all the natural elements- waterways, bush walking trails and national park. This is why I so strongly object against the Mod 7 proposal in order to protect the natural beauty that brings so many to Kurnell.
We recently had an oil spill in Kurnell which leaked into our waterways and provided an unsafe environment for its residents- I fear this latest proposal will create the next risk to our kids, waterways and wildlife. The fuel has never been completely cleaned up with the smell often returning depending on the tide. I have to tell my daughter not to play around the mangroves in fear of her safety and the contamination from the fuel.
Instead of removing the already toxic chemicals on site, this proposal insists on leaving them there and just covering the area. Kurnell is fast becoming the place to bring up kids and young families but how is this proposal promoting an environment where people want to live. Why not turn it into a recreational park or somewhere for people to enjoy, instead of fear?
Kurnell should be respected for its strong ties to creating the history of this country and natural landscape. Instead its land is used to store chemicals, providing profits for big companies and a land grab for the highest bidder.
I desperately urge you to reconsider Kurnell as the proposed location and instead consider the historic community, young families and natural habitats that call this place home.

Subject: Objection to MOD 7 – Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation, Ampol, Kurnell NSW 2231

Dear Planning Secretary,

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

While remediation of contaminated land is necessary, the scope and intent of MOD 7 raise serious concerns. There appears to be a lack of clarity around the long-term purpose of the proposed works. Local residents are particularly concerned that this proposal is laying the groundwork for the site to be repurposed into a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) or other industrial facilities that pose ongoing risks to the environment and community health.

Kurnell is already burdened by a legacy of industrial activity. The area contains ecologically sensitive wetlands, migratory bird nesting grounds, and endangered coastal ecosystems. Repurposing this land for further industrial use—especially involving high-voltage or chemical storage infrastructure—would be a direct threat to the health of the surrounding environment and could lead to further soil, water, and air contamination.

Moreover, the community consultation process has been inadequate. There has been little transparency, and affected residents have had limited opportunity to provide meaningful input.

Instead of further industrialisation, the site should be rehabilitated and preserved as green space or low-impact community use, consistent with sustainable planning and environmental recovery goals.

I strongly urge the Department to reject MOD 7 in its current form and prioritise a comprehensive review that places environmental protection and community well-being at its core.

Submission in Objection to MOD7
From: Helen Collins
Address: Kurnell, NSW 2231

I, Helen Collins, wish to register my strong and unequivocal objection to the proposed MOD7 development in Kurnell.

I am 91 years old. I moved to Kurnell 11 years ago from Alexandria to escape the heavy hand of industrial expansion that overtook my former suburb. I chose Kurnell for its peaceful atmosphere, bushland, sea breezes, and community feel — a place where I hoped to live out the rest of my days surrounded by nature, not industry.

As a writer, I have documented my deep love for this place in my unpublished works. Kurnell, the birthplace of a nation, holds a special place in Australia’s story and in my heart. I often wander to the site of the Endeavour’s first landing, reflecting on the layered history that lives in this land and water. It is unthinkable that such a historically significant and environmentally delicate area would be further degraded by a development like MOD7.

I am disgusted by the lack of respect shown to our community by both the NSW Government and Ampol. Toxic runoff, increased chemical exposure, and the continued industrialisation of Kurnell do not align with the values of sustainability, heritage, or public health. The trees I look upon daily bring me solace. The idea that these could be poisoned, that the water I live beside could be tainted, is deeply distressing. I now live with fear and anxiety about what the future holds — not only for me, but for those who come after us.

Kurnell is not a dumping ground. It is not an industrial corridor. It is a village — a living, breathing community that deserves protection.

This is not just about me, though I have earned peace at this stage of life. It is about the integrity of our environment, the wellbeing of our residents, and the respect owed to the history of this sacred place.

I implore the Department to reject MOD7. Kurnell deserves better.

Sincerely,
Helen Collins