MOD 7 Infrastructure consolidation and remediation

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification SSD-5544-Mod-7 submitted by Ampol Refineries NSW Pty Ltd for the Kurnell Refinery Conversion Project. While I acknowledge the importance of maintaining safe and efficient fuel infrastructure, I have serious concerns regarding the environmental and community impacts of this modification.
🌏 Environmental Concerns
• Contamination Risks: The modification involves remediation of soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, PFAS, and asbestos. These contaminants pose long-term risks to groundwater, ecosystems, and public health. The proposed biopiling, capping, and offsite disposal methods must be scrutinized to ensure they meet the highest standards of safety and transparency.
• Groundwater Impacts: Temporary dewatering and potential changes to groundwater quality could affect nearby groundwater-dependent ecosystems. The Groundwater Management Plan must be made publicly available and independently reviewed.
• Acid Sulfate Soils: The presence of potential acid sulfate soils (PASS) below 2m depth requires a robust Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan. Any disturbance could lead to acidification of surrounding soils and waterways.
🏘️ Community and Land Use Concerns
• Future Land Use Uncertainty: The modification prepares land for “future uses” without specifying what those uses will be. This lack of clarity raises concerns about potential industrial expansion or developments that may not align with community interests or environmental sustainability.
• Transparency and Accountability: Ampol’s environmental performance history includes multiple modifications and remediation efforts. The cumulative impact of these changes must be assessed holistically, not in isolation.
📣 Recommendations
• A full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be required for MOD-7, given the scale and sensitivity of the proposed works.
• Independent environmental audits and community consultation must be conducted before approval.
• Clear commitments should be made regarding long-term monitoring, public reporting, and land use planning.
💰 Impact on Property Values
The proposed modification SSD-5544-Mod-7 has the potential to negatively affect local property values due to:
• Perceived Environmental Risk: The presence of contaminants such as PFAS, petroleum hydrocarbons, and asbestos—even with remediation—can create long-term stigma around the site, discouraging potential buyers and investors.
• Uncertainty Around Future Land Use: The lack of clarity regarding Ampol’s intended “future uses” for the site raises concerns about possible industrial intensification, which could further depress residential property values in surrounding areas.
• Visual and Amenity Impacts: Remediation activities, infrastructure consolidation, and potential future developments may alter the character of the area, reducing its appeal and desirability.
• Market Perception: Historical industrial use and ongoing environmental management may lead to a perception of risk, which can influence buyer behavior and reduce demand.
Given these factors, the modification could result in real financial consequences for homeowners and investors in the Kurnell area. This must be considered in the planning assessment process.
I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject SSD-5544-Mod-7 until these concerns are adequately addressed and community confidence is restored.
Kind Regards
Meagan Porter

Submission in Objection to MOD7
From: Doug Murray

I strongly object to the proposed MOD7 development.

As a long-standing resident of Kurnell and a life member of the Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club, I have spent over 81 years serving and protecting my community. Today, I ask the NSW Government to protect us in return. I am now living with a serious illness and value the peace, safety, and natural beauty of Kurnell more than ever. This project threatens to destroy that.

MOD7 will leave contamination on-site, pollute our waterways, and irreversibly industrialise the area I have called home for decades. I still enjoy simple pleasures — a walk on the flat ground by the park, a swim in the ocean. These basic freedoms, which support my health and wellbeing, are under threat from the added chemical load and environmental risk this development brings.

My granddaughter has been raised here. I want to know that her future — and the future of every child in Kurnell — is being considered. I want to know their health, safety, and community will not be sacrificed. Many of my friends, relatives, and neighbours feel exactly the same way.

Fourteen days is not enough notice for a development of this scale. It shows a clear disregard for community input and due process.

I have always prioritised safety and community. I urge the Department to do the same — reject MOD7, and preserve the village character and environmental integrity of Kurnell for generations to come.

Sincerely,
Doug Murray

Submission in Objection to MOD7

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed MOD7 development in Kurnell.

I have lived in Kurnell for 28 years and have seen firsthand the impacts of industrial activity on our fragile coastal community. The MOD7 proposal threatens to worsen those impacts permanently. I am deeply concerned that contamination from the site will not be fully remediated, posing a long-term risk to human health and the local environment. Kurnell has already suffered from legacy pollution—allowing further development on compromised land without full accountability is reckless and unacceptable.

Waterways in and around Kurnell are at serious risk. MOD7 does not adequately address the potential for leaks or runoff into the surrounding marine and estuarine systems. We live near vital coastal ecosystems, and even minor contamination events could have devastating effects. The proposal’s plans for wastewater treatment also fall short of community and environmental standards, with no credible long-term assurances for safety or monitoring.

This project locks Kurnell into an industrial future, stripping it of its unique village character. Residents like myself have chosen to live here for the natural appeal, community spirit, and quiet coastal lifestyle. MOD7 is completely incompatible with that vision. It erodes what makes Kurnell special.

I urge the Department to reject MOD7. Kurnell should not be sacrificed for short-term industrial gain. Our health, environment, and way of life must come first.

Ampol's Kurnell Mod 7 proposal is completely unacceptable. this is a huge step backward for not just the local community but for all that visit the beautiful area and its natural surroundings. Time and
again Ampol have shown their hand in putting profit over health, Safety and Environment.

Testing has shown the leaching of toxins into the surrounding water course and housing. and more recently Ampol had a major event where toxins and diesel were spread throughout the streets wetlands and peoples houses through surface water. The response from Ampol is a joke!!! they throw a few dollars at local sporting clubs in the hope the it shuts the local residents up. It's a disgrace and shows the contempt the residents of Kurnell are treated with from this company.

Kurnell was once a tiny place far from the metropolitan Sydney, this has significantly changed with the gentrification of the area. further heavy industry developments shouldn't be approved in this area moving forward. Since I have lived in Kurnell heavy industry has been closing and moving. Carbon black, Caltex refining, Lubes refining because this is not an appropriate place for it. The zoning needs to be re assessed with the future in sight not just quick profits.

The Shift from Full Cleanup to Risky Containment: Mod 7 allowing Ampol to cap contaminants like PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos on-site forever, instead of removing them off-site is a slap in the face to all residents. If this is approved I will be legally seeking toxicity exposure reports and look at class action options against the company and approving parties.

I am writing to lodge an objection to Kurnell Refinery Conversion – MOD 7.
Under the Australian Oil Refinery Act, Ampol is covenanted that the “… Company will not permit any solid matter to be deposited or escape in any liquid matter to flow or percolate into Botany Bay or any ditch or channel communicating therewith or near thereto as to be liable to discharge into the same until such matter shall have been so sufficiently filtered or otherwise treated as to be innocuous to life and incapable of causing any destruction of or injury to fish or oysters … … AND THAT the Company will in discharging any liquid matter into Botany Bay at all times observe the requirements of the Board the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board … (Australian Oil Refinery Agreements Act 1954, Section 26 (c))

Ampol, with its plan to cap the current waste rather than remove it, is in clear contravention of the Australian Oil Refinery Agreements Act 1954. By allowing the toxic materials (asbestos, PFAS, hydrocarbons etc) to remain in the soil, will allow leaching of toxic chemicals to pass through the soil. It should be noted that the water table under Kurnell forms part of the Botany Sands Aquifer, and is a primary water source used by industry, golf courses and residents. This leaching could impact the quality of the Aquifer in time.
The plan to remove the Oily Water Sewer System infrastructure will change the way that stormwater is managed, with water from 22% of the Ampol site now draining via an open channel into Quibray Bay, where Towra Point Wetlands are located. This will allow and increase the amount of toxic runoff to enter the creek and run off into the mangroves which form part of internationally recognised Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and Towra Point Wetlands (site #286) is protected under the Ramsar Convention. The MOD 7 document says that there will be an increase of 10 to 20% stormwater.
It should be noted that in April 2022, 9000 litres of diesel fuel spilled from the Ampol site, contaminating surrounding land and pouring into the mangroves that form part of the Towra Point Wetlands. The event is still under investigation (yes 3 years later) but the diesel contamination has not been ruled out as a factor causing some mangroves to die off. The overall event also required Ampol to remove the contaminated soil from residential properties, public land including the Kurnell horse arena, grassed street verges, and the open channel (creek) referred to above that flows to Quibray Bay.
Ampol should be acting with social responsibility as they are located less than 500m from the Kurnell village. Therefore, they should not be allowed to ‘bury their skeletons”, they should be acting as responsible neighbours and cleaning the site in good condition.
Ampol state the community has been consulted and had no feedback. None of the recent newsletters has had any reference to MOD 7 and it was only when the SSD went to the Exhibition Stage that the residents became aware of what Ampol was trying to do, which by not remediating the site, is simply a cost cutting exercise that places the residents at increased risk of toxins.
I urge you to decline the MOD7 request from Ampol

Submission, demographic- Resident /family/parent with young children who attend school in Kurnell.

I object to Mod7, Which risks our families haven by capping containments on site
Main issues and Recommendations: Leaks to wetlands in storms no audits mean unverified safety. Recommend full removal.Any evidence/Stories or positive aspects: Murky Waters anxiety from recent spills fears over future flooding,leakage, contamination toxins, capping health, ongoing disasters Such as flooding.
Pollution types: air water, odour, noise, waste environmental biodiversity tourism businesses
Along with safety transport roads lack of audits

I’m writing to express my strong opposition to Ampol’s MOD-7 proposal for the infrastructure consolidation and remediation site in Kurnell. This plan poses a serious threat to the historical, environmental, and social fabric of a suburb that holds deep significance for both locals and visitors.
Kurnell is not just a residential area—it’s a place of national heritage, home to Kamay Botany Bay National Park and the site of Captain Cook’s landing. It’s a destination that draws thousands of weekly visitors who come to enjoy the beaches, bushwalks, and community events. The suburb has seen a noticeable increase in tourism, which supports local businesses and contributes to a vibrant, family-oriented community. Many residents are small families who value the peaceful, natural surroundings and have a strong sense of local identity.
Ampol’s proposal to cap contaminated land rather than remove the toxins entirely is deeply concerning. This method risks allowing harmful substances to leach into nearby waterways and ecosystems, threatening local wildlife and potentially impacting the health of residents and visitors. Children, in particular, are vulnerable to long-term exposure, which could potentially lead to respiratory issues, skin conditions, and other serious health problems.
This isn’t an isolated concern. The 2022 oil spill in Kurnell caused significant environmental damage, and since then, residents have continued to report persistent, unpleasant odours across the suburb. These ongoing issues reflect a troubling pattern of neglect and a lack of accountability from Ampol.
We urge planning authorities to reject MOD-7 and demand a full, transparent remediation strategy that prioritizes complete contaminant removal, environmental restoration, and the health and wellbeing of the Kurnell community.

For the safety of my community, this should be rejected.

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 30 years. It’s where my own children are now growing up, and where generations of us 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. 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.

Kurnell is so beautiful and ur making it so unsafe for families and there kids.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed MOD 7: Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation at the Ampol Kurnell Terminal.
This project poses significant and unacceptable risks to the local environment, ecosystem health, and community well-being.
Kurnell is home to fragile bushland, marine habitats, and species of ecological significance. Increased industrial activity, earthworks, and infrastructure changes will directly impact air quality, soil integrity, and local biodiversity.
The modification fails to clearly address long-term environmental safeguards, particularly regarding potential contamination from demolition works, hazardous material removal, and soil remediation. Without detailed transparency and enforceable controls, the risk of pollution to Kurnell peninsula and surrounding conservation areas remains unacceptably high.
This region has already endured substantial environmental pressure from past industrial developments. MOD 7 continues this trend without sufficient regard for cumulative environmental or community impacts. The local community is deeply concerned about airborne pollutants, noise, and traffic disturbances likely to increase during the works, but none of that matters as much as the BESS implementation. This is extremely dangerous and irresponsible planning. Implementing BESS next to a fuel storage environment is asking for a complete disaster. Let's not forget the recent fuel spill incident in 2022; again, we cannot trust a company with a bad history to implement the BESS project here in Kurnell.
I strongly urge the Department of Planning to reject this modification or suspend its approval.
We ask that the health of the Kurnell ecosystem and residents be prioritised over further industrial development.
Thank you.
Ivan Rios

To Whom It May Concern,

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

I have lived in Kurnell for the past 13 years. It is where I’ve built my life, where my children are growing up, and where I’ve developed a deep respect for the local environment and community. Kurnell is more than just a postcode — it is our home, our future, and a place deserving of long-term protection and care.

The proposal outlined in Mod 7 fails to reflect that. Choosing to leave toxic materials such as PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos buried on-site rather than removing them is not genuine remediation — it is a cost-saving measure that places public health and environmental safety at risk. As climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, the potential for these contaminants to be disturbed and spread becomes even more concerning.

Equally troubling is the lack of any clear timeline or independent oversight. Mod 7 would leave Ampol responsible for monitoring their own site indefinitely, with no enforceable obligation to fully remediate the land. This effectively locks the site into industrial use forever, removing any opportunity for future community or green space.

Our community has already experienced the consequences of industrial activity — including odours, spills, and environmental degradation. Cementing those impacts into the future is both irresponsible and unfair to those of us who have invested our lives here.

I strongly urge the Department to reject Mod 7. Ampol should be required to:
• Fully remove all contaminated material from the site;
• Undergo independent, transparent environmental audits;
• Comply with a clear and enforceable remediation timeline.

Kurnell deserves a future built on health, safety, and environmental responsibility — not buried contaminants and corporate shortcuts. I urge you to prioritise long-term community wellbeing over short-term convenience.

Sincerely,
Lisa Manson

This proposal is absolutely terrifying! As a Kurnell community member and mother of three young children, I strongly oppose Modification 7 (MOD 7) to SSD-5544. We have lived in Kurnell for nearly a decade and know what a special place it is. From the Aboriginal cultural history and birthplace of modern Australia to the current weekend tourism hotspot for families to bring their kids to the calm waters of Botany Bay and for nature and whale enthusiasts to explore Cape Solander, this proposal goes against everything Kurnell should and could be into the future. This is such a fragile part of Sydney and instead of continuing to industrialise this land, we should be restoring it fully and giving it back to the community.

For decades, Kurnell has carried the burden of oil refining, fuel storage, and environmental damage. We’ve lived with spills, leaks, pollution, and restricted access to our own coastline. And now, even though refining ended in 2014, Ampol wants to keep using the site for fuel import and distribution. That’s not what this land was meant for. Historical agreements, like the Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act 1954, clearly state that the land was leased for refining only. Once refining stopped, the land was supposed to be cleaned up and returned. That hasn’t happened.

MOD 7 isn’t just a technical update, it’s a major shift that locks us into indefinite industrial use. The so-called 'remediation' is selective and designed to support ongoing operations, not real environmental healing. It’s not enough! We need full-scale restoration: remove all the infrastructure, clean up the contamination and replant native vegetation. Let’s turn this into public open space that benefits everyone, not just a fuel company’s bottom line that doesn't consider the community it is destroying.

The environmental damage here is real and well-documented. Ampol’s own reports admit to hydrocarbon and PFAS contamination in the soil and water. We’ve lost over half of Kurnell’s natural landscape to industry and sandmining. The dunes are eroding, weeds are taking over and endangered species are under threat. Keeping tanks and pipelines in place just prolongs the damage.

We have a real chance to do something better. Imagine a restored Kurnell Peninsula - linked to Towra Point and Kamay Botany Bay National Park - where native plants thrive, wildlife returns, and people can walk, learn, and connect with nature and history. This land is culturally and historically significant. It’s where Captain Cook landed in 1770, and it holds deep meaning for the Dharawal people, with sacred sites and ancient middens. Industrial use has already done enough harm. Let’s not make it worse.

Recent upgrades to Kamay Botany Bay National Park show what’s possible when we invest in restoration and public access. MOD 7 would block that progress. Instead of walking trails and cultural centers, we’d get more fences and fuel tanks. That’s not the legacy we should be leaving.

From a community perspective, we’ve had enough. We’ve lived with the noise, the pollution, the restricted access. Refining is over. Now is the time to give something back - parks, green space, clean air and a healthier future. Ampol’s community fund is a nice gesture, but it doesn’t compare to the long-term benefits of full land restoration. Jobs in environmental management, tourism and education could replace those lost in industry.

Approving MOD 7 would go against NSW’s own planning goals which call for decontamination, rehabilitation and sustainable development. It would also set a dangerous precedent for other industrial sites. We should be moving away from fossil fuel infrastructure, especially in vulnerable coastal areas with one road in and out - not doubling down on it.

So I’m urging the Department to reject MOD 7. Let’s honor the original agreements. Let’s clean up the land properly. Let’s return it to the people of Kurnell and future generations. We have a rare chance to turn a site of harm into a place of healing, learning and connection. What an amazing story that would be! Let’s not waste it.

Thank you for considering the health and future of the Kurnell community.

I am writing as a super concerned citizen of the Kurnell community.
Kurnell is a pristine community known for its beaufitul beaches and strong community and family unity. So many tourist visit from near and afar to spend time within Kurnell for so many reasons and the fact you are actually considering this project and ruining everything this community has to offer Sydney is astonishing.
Both myself and my family are writing to highly object against the Modification (MOD-7) to State Significant Development SSD-5544. This proposal lodged by Ampol seeks to consolidate infrastructure and undertake remediation at the former Kurnell Refinery site, a fuel terminal. As a parent, I am deeply disturbed about the ongoing environment and health risks that will come about with this development.

I am a mother of three school aged children, who currently thrive within this environment. They spend so much time at the local parks, reserves, beaches and just outside within the community in general. They swim near silver beach numerous times a week and its these areas so close to the proposed terminal site I am terrified of that will exposes them to all kinds of pollutants that will affect our water and soil.

Kurnell has an extremely special cultural history dating back to the Dharawal people with sacred sites and middens.The development of MOD 7 will block off and affect these important parts of our history and stop the outsiders from visiting such a unique and special place.

We as a community urge the department to reject MOD 7 and require AMPOL to fully remediate and return the site back to the community. Our children and elders deserve to swim in clean water and play in safe spaces, breathe non toxic air. It actually hurts my heart to think we as a community have to plead to the department to reject a project that will most likely affect the health and safety of our children.If not for them, then for who?
Priositise the health of our kids and make these lands a green space, not a fuel terminal for people in suits who spend no time within the community. I guarantee they would oppose MOD 7 being built next door to them.

Kindly,
Binaca Miller

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 10 years. It’s where my children are growing up, and where generations of my friends and their families 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. 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.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to Modification 7 (Mod 7) for the proposed Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation at the former refinery site in Kurnell.

My wife, our newborn child, and I have just moved to Kurnell. We chose this suburb because of its unique natural beauty, tight-knit community, and the sense of peace it offers—qualities that are increasingly rare in Sydney. This is now our home, and we feel a deep responsibility to help protect and preserve it, not only for ourselves but for future generations.

The proposal under Mod 7 is extremely concerning. Leaving harmful contaminants such as PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos buried on site—rather than removing them entirely—is not a real clean-up. It is a temporary cover-up that prioritises cost savings over the health and safety of residents, the local ecosystem, and the long-term wellbeing of this community. As climate change accelerates and weather events become more extreme, the risks of leaving these materials in the ground will only grow.

We are also alarmed by the lack of a clear timeline and the absence of truly independent environmental oversight. Mod 7 would essentially hand over ongoing management to Ampol themselves, allowing them to monitor their own site indefinitely without enforceable obligations to properly remediate the land. Once this is approved, the area is effectively locked into permanent industrial use, eliminating the potential for future community spaces, conservation efforts, or residential renewal.

As new parents, we think about the future every single day. The idea that this land—right in the heart of Kurnell—could remain a toxic liability rather than being properly cleaned and restored is unacceptable. We did not move here to raise our child in the shadow of a half-finished remediation process, or with the constant threat of environmental risk hanging over our heads.

We strongly urge the Department to reject Mod 7 and require Ampol to:
• Remove all contaminated material from the site, not just cap it and leave it.
• Engage independent, transparent environmental auditing throughout the process.
• Commit to a clear, enforceable timeline for full remediation.

Kurnell deserves better than this. Our community’s health, the integrity of our wetlands, and the future of this unique area should not be compromised for the sake of short-term corporate convenience.

Please choose community safety and long-term environmental care over cost-cutting and temporary fixes.

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 60 years. It’s where I grew up, where my own children are now growing up, and where generations of us 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. 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.

Formal Objection to MOD 7 – Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation

I am writing to formally object to MOD 7: Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation on the grounds of its potentially adverse impacts on the local environment, heritage values, and community amenity. While the intention of remediation and consolidation may be grounded in operational efficiency or compliance, the lack of transparency in the process and the absence of adequate community consultation raise significant concerns.

Firstly, the proposal appears to overlook the ecological sensitivity of the area. The documentation provided fails to adequately assess the cumulative environmental impacts of infrastructure consolidation—particularly in regard to soil disturbance, biodiversity loss, and potential water contamination. Remediation works, if not carried out with rigorous environmental controls, can cause more harm than benefit, particularly when native vegetation is cleared or when contaminated materials are exposed without proper containment strategies.

Secondly, MOD 7 appears to prioritise infrastructure efficiency over the preservation of cultural and community assets. If heritage-listed or community-valued structures are being modified, relocated, or demolished without due process or heritage assessment, this would constitute a serious breach of planning obligations. No clear heritage impact statement has been disclosed, which is both disappointing and procedurally insufficient.

Finally, the community has not been afforded a fair opportunity to review or respond to the full scope of the proposed modifications. Given the potential long-term implications of MOD 7, it is imperative that further independent assessment and meaningful public consultation take place before any approval is granted.

Accordingly, I strongly object to MOD 7 and urge the relevant authorities to reject the modification in its current form.

I object to this Mod 7 project due to the pollution danger it WILL do to our land and waterways. Ampol have already demonstrated how dangerous they are in recent disasters. Flooding oil through our wetlands and waterways when a pump stopped working during heavy rains.
How this project can even be a considered is criminal. Putting dangerous contaminants in the ground of the birth place of Australia will put all of us at health risk for a short term, money cutting measure by this corporation.
Kurnell has had many severe weather incidents we in the last 10 years with tornados & flooding which would only disturb and spread this dangerous material all through our neighbourhood.
Enough is enough, please Department reject Mod 7.
Ampol should be required to remove all contaminated material off site.

I write to formally object to the proposed SSD-5544-Mod 7 modification for the Kurnell Terminal, titled Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation. While the stated aim is to remove redundant infrastructure and enable remediation, the proposal lacks transparency, sufficient safeguards, and accountability. This modification, under the guise of “consolidation and remediation,” appears to be part of a long-term strategy to prolong industrial activity on an already overburdened and sensitive site, without meaningful community consultation or a comprehensive environmental assessment.

The Kurnell peninsula is a unique and environmentally sensitive area, historically significant both ecologically and culturally, particularly to First Nations communities. The proposal does not provide adequate protection for these values. It fails to clearly articulate how it will avoid disturbing heritage sites, nor does it guarantee the preservation of surrounding coastal ecosystems, which are vulnerable to erosion, sediment disturbance, and pollution. The plan outlines no clear remediation objectives or measurable success criteria, leaving the community with little confidence that the works will lead to actual environmental recovery rather than simply facilitating ongoing industrial use.

From a public health and safety perspective, the omission of detailed risk assessments for community exposure during the removal of old industrial assets—including potential legacy contaminants—is unacceptable. In recent years, battery storage developments and infrastructure consolidation projects around the world have raised serious concerns about toxic runoff, air pollution, and fire risk, especially when located near residential or ecologically sensitive zones. The recent incidents in Victoria and California involving lithium-ion battery fires, toxic smoke plumes, and water contamination illustrate the inherent dangers of these technologies if not strictly controlled and placed well away from populated or environmentally valuable areas. The lack of transparency about what infrastructure is being removed or what may eventually replace it only deepens these concerns. Community members are justifiably alarmed by the potential for the site to become host to high-risk infrastructure such as large-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS) without appropriate scrutiny or strategic planning.

Additionally, the cumulative impact of numerous modifications to the Kurnell Terminal over recent years has not been adequately addressed. The community has seen a slow creep of industrial expansion disguised as “maintenance” or “remediation,” with each project pushing the boundaries of what was originally approved. This piecemeal approach circumvents robust environmental assessment and sidesteps the kind of comprehensive impact analysis required when a site’s function shifts significantly over time. The Mod 7 proposal must be considered in the broader context of how this site is evolving—not as an isolated change, but as part of an ongoing transformation with significant implications for residents, ecosystems, and future land use.

Furthermore, the proposal provides no clear comparison of alternatives. It does not evaluate other approaches to site decommissioning, land restoration, or possible repurposing for low-impact community or conservation use. In its current form, it simply enables the operator to extend and entrench industrial activity behind vague environmental goals.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose SSD‑5544‑Mod 7. A full Environmental Impact Statement should be required, cumulative impacts assessed, and alternative land-use pathways explored before any works are approved. Most importantly, the voices and concerns of the Kurnell community—who have endured decades of heavy industry on their doorstep—must be heard, respected, and prioritised in this process.