MOD 7 Infrastructure consolidation and remediation

Having been born and raised in Kurnell, although I don’t live there now, I still have family and friends living there. The proposed mod 7 and BESS project places everyone in danger. Surely the health and welfare of the community should take precedence over industries such as these. Surely commonsense must prevail

Having grown up in Kurnell this proposal as well as other issues saddens and worries me for the future of Kurnell, the environment and its residents. We still spend a great deal of time in Kurnell as my wife and I are closely connected to the area as we have much family there including my 92 year old mother
We passionately reject this proposal as well as BESS proposal on the grounds of health and safety of the community and the environment
We feel that the only outcome of these proposals is irreversible damage to what is a beautiful environment and creating an unsafe and dangerous space for the community
It would seem inconceivable that any responsible council or government organisation could even consider such proposals from Ampol, with their history of failure
Please reject these proposals for the health, safety and welfare of the community and the environment

My family are one of the founding families of Kurnell, my father helped build the refinery. We have seen many changes to industry and more importantly the families that have made such an amazing community. To put heavy industry amongst the residents is a huge hazard for families, especially safety to our elderly and young families.
Changing the refinery to BESS storage is extremely dangerous, being in close proximity to highly flammable materials.
Ampol MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE to all contamination levels, with safe cleanup and removal.
The roads cannot withstand higher heavy industrial traffic.
The families of Kurnell deserve better. The birthplace of our nation is not a dumping ground.

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed Modification 7 (Mod-7) for SSD-5544, the Kurnell Terminal Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation project by Ampol Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd. As a resident of Kurnell and a soon-to-be mother planning to raise our young family in this beautiful coastal community, I am profoundly worried about the severe and lasting impacts this modification could have on our family's health, safety, and quality of life, as well as the fragile environment around Botany Bay. The proposal includes major works like extensive excavation, capping of contaminated sites, relocation of firewater tanks, and alterations to stormwater systems on a historically polluted industrial site, including PFAS from old fire-fighting foams.epa.nsw.gov.au These changes could intensify existing contamination problems, turning our family-friendly suburb into a place of ongoing risk and uncertainty.

The environmental dangers outlined in the report are particularly distressing as a parent-to-be. Our site's groundwater is already tainted with PFAS, which has spread offsite and threatens nearby wetlands and Botany Bay.epa.nsw.gov.au Activities such as excavation and material handling (detailed in Figures 4-2 and 4-3) risk stirring up contaminated soils, releasing dust and runoff that could harm the air we breathe and the waterways where our children might one day play. The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report notes indirect effects on threatened species and native vegetation (Figures 7-18 and 7-19), but the proposed mitigations fall short for an area so close to sensitive coastal ecosystems. Modifications to flooding and stormwater (Figures 7-6 and 7-11) might degrade water quality in Quibray Bay, endangering marine life and the beaches we envision as safe playgrounds for our family outings. For us, this isn't just about ecology—it's about preserving a clean, natural world for our kids to inherit and enjoy without fear of hidden toxins.

Even more concerning are the direct threats to family health and well-being in a community like Kurnell, where families like ours choose to settle for its peaceful, suburban charm. The remediation process could amplify noise and vibration (Section 7.8), heavy traffic from trucks (Section 7.7), and air pollution from dust and emissions (Section 7.10), creating a disruptive environment that's especially harmful for young children with developing lungs and immune systems. The Social Impact Assessment (Section 7.9) underestimates these long-term effects, but with PFAS in groundwater leading to health warnings against bore water use,epa.nsw.gov.au this project raises serious exposure risks that could affect pregnancy, child development, and our family's overall safety. As a future mother, the thought of raising children amid potential respiratory issues, contaminated surroundings, and the stress of industrial disturbances is heartbreaking. Cumulatively with the site's industrial history, Mod-7 jeopardizes the healthy, nurturing home we want for our family.

Community consultation has felt insufficient, with the report's timelines (exhibition until mid-2025, ongoing assessment) not fully capturing the worries of families like mine from prior modifications. I implore the Department to reject this proposal outright or mandate an independent review, tougher remediation protocols, and robust safeguards to protect family health and our environment. Kurnell should be a haven for growing families, not a reminder of industrial hazards that burden future generations.

Sincerely,
Madeline Hill
Kurnell, NSW

Objection to Proposed Battery Energy Storage Facility at Ampol Terminal Site

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed battery energy storage facility at the Ampol terminal site, which lies less than one kilometre from my home and dangerously close to the Kurnell National Park.

As a parent of young children, I am deeply concerned about the potential safety risks associated with such a large-scale industrial battery facility. Incidents involving lithium-ion battery fires are well-documented and extremely difficult to contain, releasing toxic gases and posing a significant explosion risk. Locating such a facility so close to residential homes and a beloved natural park is both reckless and irresponsible. The health and safety of our children should not be compromised for infrastructure that can be placed in a more remote, industrial area.

Additionally, the plan includes the removal of heritage-listed buildings on the site—structures that form a crucial part of Kurnell’s cultural identity and history. These buildings are among the few remaining physical links to our past, and their loss would be an irreversible blow to our small community’s character and historical continuity.

Kurnell is a quiet town with a close-knit community and rich heritage. This proposal threatens both the safety of our families and the integrity of our environment and history. I urge the relevant authorities to reconsider this development and look for more suitable locations that do not endanger local residents or erase vital parts of our town’s heritage.

Thanks

Introduction
We're an elderly couple who've called Kurnell home for over 45 years, witnessing the refinery's shutdown in 2014 and the wonderful uplift in health, happiness, reduced pollution, and families thriving here. We're absolutely disgusted by Ampol's reversal and feel deeply betrayed after 70 years of their destruction—it's time they move on so Australia's birthplace can flourish.
Opening Statement
- Mod 7 is a disgusting betrayal, abandoning mandatory cleanup commitments to cap toxins for cost-cutting and shareholder revenue, reversing 10+ years of uplift in health/happiness/pollution drop since refinery shutdown.
- It risks ongoing disasters like floods leaching contaminants, endangering our proud community's safety, biodiversity, and economy—subdivision creates confusion, perpetuating pollution that could ruin Kurnell again.
- As long-time residents, we're outraged this tears apart the thriving peninsula we've seen reborn, locking industrial zoning over parks/tourism and ignoring substantial government investments in uplift.
Recommendations
- Reject Mod 7 outright—it's an outrageous profit grab ignoring 70 years of damage; enforce original off-site removal to honor commitments and restore Kurnell for thriving families/nature.
- Mandate independent audits/public reporting with penalties, ending self-monitoring that hides issues like floods/pollution.
- Set strict timelines for full remediation, blocking indefinite delays and enabling rezoning to parks/non-industrial uses over heavy industry perpetuity.
- Prohibit subdivision to prevent multiple stakeholders evading accountability in disasters, ensuring Ampol alone answers for leaks/floods.
- Require offsets/mitigation for all pollution types/biodiversity, protecting health/safety/environment/tourism/businesses and aligning with government investments like in peninsula rejuvenation.
Evidence/Arguments
- Having lived through refinery's 70 years of pollution destroying health/happiness, we've seen massive uplift since 2014 shutdown—families in, pollution down; Mod 7's capping would reverse this progress we've cherished.
- Keeps PFAS/hydrocarbons/asbestos on-site, risking leaks/floods into bay/wetlands after all our gains (Mod7 Report Sec 4 Pg 60; Fig 7-5 Pg 111).
- We've endured past odors/noise; subdivision chases revenue via BESS/SAF but multiplies stakeholders, diluting accountability in disasters—who answers when fingers point? (Scoping Report Pg 215; Mod7 Report Fig B-2 Pg 240).
- Locks E5 zoning forever, blocking parks/community spaces we need for biodiversity/tourism after uplift investments (Scoping Report Pg 51; Mod7 Report Sec 8.1 Pg 215).
- Indefinite monitoring without audits means endless uncertainty/ongoing pollution (air emissions, water runoff, odors, noise, waste), betraying our pride in Kurnell's rebirth (Mod7 Report App G Pg 8; Sec 3 Pg 53).
- Safety threatened by increased transport/roads from industry, endangering our walks; harms businesses/tourism as contamination deters visitors, undoing government efforts (Mod7 Report Fig 4-3 Pg 58).
Positive Aspects
Ampol's cost/revenue strategy for shareholders via BESS/SAF (Scoping Report Pg 215) offers no real positives—it's a reversal of our hard-won uplift, outweighing any jobs with health threats, environmental ruin, biodiversity loss, pollution across types, safety risks, and economic damage to tourism/businesses from zoning/subdivision.
Closing
As disgusted long-time residents, please reply fully and meet to discuss this betrayal—we demand Ampol move on for Kurnell's thriving future.

I am writing as a local homeowner and resident to formally object to the proposed MOD 7 Infrastructure consolidation and remediation project at the Ampol Kurnell Terminal. Based on the site’s documented history of environmental incidents, ongoing contamination issues, and inadequate community consultation, I believe this modification poses unacceptable risks to community health, environmental safety, and local property values.
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
1. INADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS
Historical Environmental Failures:
• The April 2022 wastewater treatment plant overflow that discharged hydrocarbon residues onto Captain Cook Drive and surrounding residential areas demonstrates Ampol’s inability to adequately manage environmental risks
• Ampol admitted that waste materials from the 2014 refinery closure were “missed” during cleanup and remained on site for 8 years before the 2022 spill
• The company’s own admission that approximately 9,200 litres of hydrocarbons escaped during the flood event raises serious questions about their environmental management capabilities
Ongoing Contamination Issues:
• PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) contamination continues to be present both on and off-site, with ongoing migration via groundwater
• Residential bore water monitoring has been required due to contamination concerns
• The presence of asbestos contaminated soil containment cells on site creates additional environmental risks
Inadequate Risk Management:
• The proposed consolidation and remediation works may disturb contaminated soils and materials, potentially releasing further contaminants into the environment
• Given the site’s history of environmental failures, there is insufficient confidence that additional infrastructure changes can be managed safely
2. COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS
Direct Health Risks:
• The 2022 spill resulted in children riding bikes through contaminated areas and using affected recreational facilities before the community was properly informed
• PFAS contamination poses long-term health risks to residents through potential exposure via groundwater and environmental pathways
• Additional infrastructure works and remediation activities may create dust, noise, and potential chemical exposure risks for nearby residents
Inadequate Community Protection:
• Ampol’s delayed and inadequate communication during the 2022 incident demonstrates poor community safety protocols
• The company’s acknowledgment of “improved communication was needed” indicates systemic failures in community protection measures
• There is insufficient detail about how community health will be protected during the proposed works
3. NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES
Environmental Stigma:
• The well-documented history of spills, contamination, and environmental mismanagement creates ongoing stigma affecting local property values
• Potential purchasers are increasingly aware of environmental risks and contamination issues when considering property purchases
• Additional industrial activities and remediation works will further highlight the area’s environmental problems
Proximity to Industrial Risk:
• Ongoing operations and modification works at the terminal create uncertainty about future environmental incidents
• The presence of contaminated materials and ongoing remediation activities makes the area less desirable for residential investment
• Insurance costs and availability may be affected for properties near sites with known contamination issues
4. INADEQUATE CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION
Insufficient Project Details:
• The publicly available information lacks sufficient detail about the specific nature of remediation works, timelines, and potential community impacts
• No comprehensive risk assessment addressing cumulative environmental impacts has been provided
• The modification process does not appear to adequately consider the site’s problematic environmental history
Poor Community Engagement:
• Ampol’s track record of community communication during environmental incidents has been inadequate
• The 2022 incident demonstrated poor transparency, with residents feeling “worse than when we walked in” after company briefings
• There has been insufficient opportunity for meaningful community input on this modification
5. CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Ongoing Environmental Burden:
• The Kurnell community has already borne significant environmental burden from decades of refinery operations and subsequent contamination
• The proposed modification represents further potential environmental risk to a community already dealing with PFAS contamination and previous spill incidents
• The cumulative impact of ongoing industrial operations at this site is not adequately assessed or mitigated
REQUESTED OUTCOMES
I respectfully request that the Department of Planning and Environment:
1. REFUSE the MOD 7 application based on inadequate environmental safeguards and community protection measures
2. REQUIRE a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement specifically addressing:
• Cumulative environmental impacts including existing PFAS contamination
• Detailed risk assessment of soil disturbance and contamination mobilization
• Comprehensive community health protection measures
• Independent environmental monitoring and reporting protocols
3. MANDATE improved community consultation processes including:
• Regular community briefings with independent environmental experts
• Establishment of a community advisory committee with decision-making input
• Real-time environmental monitoring data accessible to the public
4. ENSURE adequate financial security and insurance coverage for any future environmental incidents or contamination issues
CONCLUSION
The Ampol Kurnell Terminal has demonstrated a pattern of environmental mismanagement that undermines confidence in their ability to safely undertake further infrastructure modifications. The community has already suffered significant impacts from contamination and spills, and should not be subjected to additional risks without comprehensive safeguards and transparent consultation.
Given the site’s documented environmental problems, ongoing contamination issues, and impact on community wellbeing and property values, I urge the Department to refuse this modification until adequate protections and risk mitigation measures are in place.
The precautionary principle should apply - where there are threats of serious environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation and protect community health.
This submission represents my genuine concerns as a local resident and ratepayer who will be directly affected by the outcomes of this development application.

We are a family of 4. I’m 49, wife Victoria is also 49. Abbey is 21 and Noah is 15 years old. We are concerned if there is an emergency with contaminants, toxins or health. Kurnell has only one road in with over 2000 residents. Evacuation would almost be impossible with one road that actually drives past the actual storage facility.

We are long time residents of Kurnell, over 50 years, and have watched as the refinery has changed our community, and not all for the better or benefit of Kurnell.
This Mod 7 is not going to keep our community safe. It is going to leave Kurnell damaged and unsafe for the future of young people who will have to bring up their families in an environment of pollution and toxic waste left behind by Ampol.
Our environment, waterways, and ecology will be an on-going harmful and destroying risk to the community.
Stop thinking only of the money saved by ruining Kurnell, and think about the lives of people who you are going to be affecting by your plans.
As a community, we have allowed Caltex / Ampol to conduct their business alongside our village. They are now making our village a dumping ground. We have ALL worked hard for our properties in Kurnell to now be subjected to further dangerous chemicals. We do not want BESS, we do not want our soils or local beaches contaminated, we do not want more pollution than we have already been exposed to over the many years of refining, storing and burning of fuels.
No other council or state would allow this to happen to one of their coastal communities. We have ocean-life, mangrove-life, National Park-life, and human lives that are at a huge risk because of the greed of companies who just don't care. '
BUT, my family care. My community cares. My village cares. We have had enough of our environment being destroyed.
Planes, trucks, industry, toxins, oil refinery, carbon black, rubbish dump, destroyed natural sandhills, tanker ships... and now you want to add a risk of fire that can not be put out. We will not benefit as a community from this development, we will lose our homes, our retirement, our livelihoods, our tourism, our younger generations, and our safety.
Caltex / Ampol have paved paradise, and now they want to watch us suffer.
I appreciate the opportunity to voice my say and hope that the right decisions are made in regard to this development.
Our lives, and Kurnell's future, depend on keeping our community safe and building a beautiful environment, not dishing out more stress, heartbreak and torture for the humans and wild life that inhabit our Village. OUR KURNELL!
Kind regards

Maria and Ernie Hill
Kurnell, NSW 2471
Response/Meeting on long term effects .
July 2025.

I write to formally object to MOD 7 – Infrastructure consolidation and remediation, and particularly to the concurrent development of the large-scale Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) at the Ampol Kurnell Terminal. My concerns focus on the health and environmental implications, which I believe have not been adequately addressed.

Firstly, although Ampol’s MOD 7 clarifies the removal of redundant infrastructure and grading works
Ampol, it lacks detail on residual contamination risks. Historically, the site has handled petroleum products and asbestos-containing materials, with past remediation documented under MOD 6 and earlier . Consolidation activities risk re‑exposure of buried contaminants, releasing particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and asbestos fibres into air and groundwater. This poses a real threat to nearby residents’ respiratory health and increases cancer risk if airborne fibres are disturbed.

In addition, the proposed BESS—up to 800 MW/3,800 MWh—is sited close to residential areas (~490 m away). Although lithium‑ion batteries can support decarbonisation, they also carry fire and chemical hazard risks. Reports acknowledge battery fires are “rare and generally contained”
Ampol, yet incidents in other jurisdictions show thermal runaway can spread fire and smoke clouds containing toxic PFAS and heavy metals. Given the proximity of homes and sensitive ecological reserves, any fire event could lead to acute inhalation exposure and long-term soil and water contamination.

Furthermore, the site is adjacent to important ecosystems (Towra Point and Botany Bay), with potential cumulative impacts on air quality, water runoff, and biodiversity. Ampol has committed to mitigation measures, but their monitoring plans remain insufficiently transparent. Independent oversight and emergency response protocols appear vague and untested for large-scale BESS failures.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Modification 7 (MOD 7) to State Significant Development SSD-5544, which involves infrastructure consolidation, removal of redundant assets, and remediation works at the Kurnell Terminal in Sutherland Shire, NSW, operated by Ampol (formerly Caltex). As a concerned resident/community member/environmental advocate with a strong interest in the sustainable management of the Kurnell Peninsula, I believe this modification represents a missed opportunity for true environmental restoration and community benefit. Instead of perpetuating industrial use on this historically significant and ecologically sensitive surroundings, the site should be fully remediated and returned to the community as public open space to compensate for decades of environmental harm and community harm. For decades we have turned a blind eye to the spills and gas leaks, but to hear that Ampol are looking to subject us to decades more of the same is unreal.

My primary objection centers on the improper extension of industrial activities on land that was originally leased or granted specifically for oil refining purposes. Historical records, including the Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act 1954, show that portions of the Kurnell site, including Crown land, were provided to Caltex under strict conditions tied to refinery operations. These agreements included 99-year leases for infrastructure like jetties in Botany Bay, with covenants restricting use to refining and related activities only, and requiring government consent for any deviations. Crucially, upon cessation of refining or lease expiration, there are provisions for the removal of structures and reversion of the land to the Crown, emphasizing the need to avoid pollution and restore the site.

Refining operations ceased in 2014, rendering the original purpose obsolete. Yet, MOD 7 seeks to consolidate infrastructure for ongoing fuel import and distribution, effectively repurposing the site without fulfilling these obligations. This is not a mere administrative tweak but a fundamental shift that denies the community the right to reclaim this land. The proposal's focus on "remediation and grading" is selective, aimed at supporting continued commercial operations rather than comprehensive restoration. Approving this would contradict the intent of the original leases, which prioritised environmental protection over indefinite industrial occupation. I urge the NSW Government to enforce these historical agreements and require Ampol to hand back the land for regeneration as community space, aligning with calls from groups like the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre for rezoning to open space or national park extension.

Beyond legal and historical grounds, the environmental legacy of the refinery demands full regeneration, not partial fixes. For over 60 years, the site has inflicted significant harm on the Kurnell Peninsula, including hydrocarbon and PFAS contamination of soil, groundwater, and Botany Bay, as acknowledged in Ampol's own environmental reports and the original SSD-5544 Environmental Impact Statement. This has led to habitat loss, erosion of sand dunes, and threats to endangered species in adjacent areas like Towra Point Nature Reserve. The peninsula has already lost approximately 55% of its natural land to industrial activities, including sandmining and the refinery, resulting in widespread weed infestation and biodiversity decline.

MOD 7's proposed works, while including some asset removal and remediation, maintain a substantial industrial footprint with retained storage tanks, pipelines, and distribution facilities. This approach falls short of what is needed to heal the land— decontamination, reforestation with native vegetation, and integration with surrounding protected areas to create a continuous ecological corridor. True compensation for historical harm would involve nurturing the site back to health as public land, enhancing carbon sequestration, improving water quality in Botany Bay, and mitigating ongoing health risks to local residents from legacy pollutants. Partial remediation for industrial consolidation prioritizes Ampol's profits over restorative justice and sustainable land use, ignoring the broader climate imperatives of reducing fossil fuel infrastructure in vulnerable coastal zones.

The cultural and historical significance of Kurnell further underscores the need to reject MOD 7 in favor of community-led regeneration. As the site of Captain James Cook's 1770 landing and a place of profound Indigenous heritage for the Dharawal people—with ancient middens, sacred sites, and traditional connections—the peninsula is a national icon. The refinery's development in the 1950s fragmented this landscape, restricting public access and degrading heritage values. The 1954 Act explicitly includes protections for areas like Captain Cook's Landing Place Reserve, yet ongoing industrial presence continues to undermine these.

Recent initiatives, such as the Kamay Botany Bay National Park upgrades, highlight the value of public access and restoration for education, tourism, and cultural reconciliation. By consolidating infrastructure, MOD 7 would perpetuate barriers to this, limiting opportunities for walking trails, interpretive centers, or expanded parkland that could honor Kurnell's dual Indigenous and European histories. Handing the land back would allow for a "protected corridor of native vegetation" across the peninsula, as advocated by community groups, fostering reconciliation and boosting local economy through eco-tourism rather than fuel terminals.

From a community perspective, approving MOD 7 would overlook the long-term burdens borne by Kurnell residents, including noise, air pollution, and restricted access to their own backyard. With refining ended, there is a golden opportunity to deliver tangible benefits like new recreational spaces, which could improve mental health, property values, and quality of life. Ampol's community initiatives, such as the Kurnell Community Fund, are welcome but insufficient compared to full land reversion, which could generate jobs in environmental restoration and management. Local opposition to past developments on the peninsula demonstrates a clear preference for more green space over industrial expansion.

Finally, this proposal is inconsistent with broader NSW planning policies that emphasize decontamination, rehabilitation, and sustainable development. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Kurnell Peninsula) 1989 calls for thorough remediation, while regional strategies aim to phase out extractive industries and protect biodiversity hotspots. Approving MOD 7 would set a dangerous precedent for other legacy industrial sites, conflicting with net-zero goals and community-led land management principles. Instead, I call for an independent review of options for land handover, potentially rezoning the site for environmental or open space use in collaboration with Sutherland Shire Council and Indigenous stakeholders.

In conclusion, I strongly object to MOD 7 and urge the Department to reject it. The Kurnell Terminal site should be fully remediated and returned to the community as regenerated public land, making amends for historical harms and securing a legacy of environmental and cultural stewardship. Thank you for considering this submission.

I'm a Kurnell parent with young children, and we've made this place our home because of its natural beauty and peaceful environment. I’m grateful for the chance to make a submission. Like many locals, I’m deeply concerned about the environmental and health impacts of Mod 7, especially as they relate to flooding, contamination, and noise pollution.

Mod 7 prioritises industrial convenience over community health and safety. By capping waste on-site and increasing industrial activity, it puts local families, wildlife, and the environment at risk of long-term harm.

Reject Mod 7. Demand off-site waste removal, clear timelines for cleanup, and a proper plan for rezoning the area to parks and nature-based uses.

* Flooding risks are worsened by on-site containment of PFAS/toxins, increasing danger to homes and wildlife habitats (Mod7 Report Sec 4; Fig 7-5 Pg 111).
* Site’s contamination history includes PFAS and other toxic legacy issues that impact local water and air quality (Scoping Report Pg 60).
* Noise pollution and industrial activity will affect our children’s sleep, health, and mental wellbeing (App G Pg 8 & Sec 3 Pg 53).
* Wildlife and wetland areas are at risk from runoff and habitat disruption, which could lead to long-term ecological damage (Scoping Report Fig 4-3 Pg 58; Fig 7-5 Pg 111).

No positive economic or infrastructure outcomes outweigh the risk to community wellbeing and local ecosystems.

Submission of Objection to MOD 7 – SSD-5544 (Kurnell Terminal, Sutherland Shire, NSW)

I am writing to formally object to Modification 7 (MOD 7) of State Significant Development SSD-5544 concerning the Kurnell Terminal operated by Ampol (formerly Caltex). As a concerned resident and environmental advocate committed to the sustainable future of the Kurnell Peninsula, I believe this proposal represents a missed opportunity to achieve genuine environmental restoration and long-overdue community benefit.

MOD 7 proposes to consolidate infrastructure, remove redundant assets, and undertake limited remediation works. However, instead of restoring the land following decades of industrial harm, it seeks to entrench continued fuel import and distribution on a site that is ecologically fragile, historically significant, and deeply scarred by past activities. The site should be fully remediated and returned to the community as public open space — not repurposed for indefinite industrial use under the guise of remediation.

1. Breach of Original Land Use Agreements
The land at Kurnell was originally granted for oil refining under specific conditions set out in the Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act 1954. These included 99-year leases for infrastructure such as jetties, with strict covenants limiting their use to refinery operations and requiring government consent for changes. Importantly, the agreements required removal of structures and restoration of land upon lease expiry or cessation of refining.

Refining ceased in 2014. MOD 7 now seeks to extend industrial use in direct contradiction to these historical conditions — a move that undermines the community’s right to reclaim this land. This is not a minor administrative amendment; it’s a significant departure from the original purpose and intent of the site’s lease arrangements.

2. Environmental Harm and Inadequate Remediation
Over 60 years of refinery operations have left the site contaminated with hydrocarbons, PFAS, and other pollutants, damaging groundwater, soils, and nearby ecosystems, including Towra Point Nature Reserve. Ampol’s own reports confirm these impacts.

While MOD 7 includes partial remediation, it retains substantial industrial infrastructure — tanks, pipelines, and distribution facilities — rather than undertaking full decontamination and ecological restoration. This piecemeal approach prioritizes corporate operations over the broader environmental need to rehabilitate the area through native reforestation and integration into surrounding conservation zones.

3. Cultural and Historical Significance
The Kurnell Peninsula holds profound national and cultural importance — both as the site of Captain Cook’s 1770 landing and as land of deep ancestral and spiritual significance to the Dharawal people. The ongoing industrial use of this landscape degrades these heritage values and restricts public access to a place that should be protected and celebrated.

Recent investment in Kamay Botany Bay National Park has shown the value of heritage-based restoration. Handing back the terminal site for community regeneration would open doors to interpretive walking trails, educational facilities, and expanded parkland — honouring both Indigenous and European histories while supporting eco-tourism and cultural reconciliation.

4. Community Impact and Missed Opportunity
Kurnell residents have borne the brunt of industrial activity for decades: air and noise pollution, environmental degradation, and loss of public access to their own coastal backyard. With refining now ended, there is a rare chance to return value to the community — not through token gestures, but through meaningful land handover for open space, mental health, recreation, and environmental employment.

Ampol’s community programs, while appreciated, fall far short of the legacy restoration this site deserves. Local opposition to past developments reflects a clear and long-standing desire for more green space, not prolonged industrial presence.

5. Planning Policy and Precedent
Approval of MOD 7 would run counter to state planning priorities, including the State Environmental Planning Policy (Kurnell Peninsula) 1989, which calls for rehabilitation of degraded land. It also conflicts with broader regional and state goals for biodiversity protection, sustainable development, and transition away from fossil fuel infrastructure in vulnerable coastal areas.

This decision will set a precedent for how legacy industrial sites are handled across NSW. It must reflect a commitment to climate resilience, environmental justice, and community-led planning — not simply serve commercial convenience.

Conclusion

MOD 7 should be rejected. It fails to honour legal obligations, perpetuates environmental harm, and ignores the deep cultural, ecological, and community significance of the Kurnell Peninsula. I urge the Department to instead require full site remediation and return of this land to the public for regeneration as open space or national park — a lasting and just outcome that supports reconciliation, climate goals, and community wellbeing.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Hello,
As a Kurnell resident I strongly disagree with Mod 7.
I live in this beautiful community and enjoy swimming in the baths during summer.
The thought of forever swimming in water that is polluted by runoff from the Ampol site is alarming.
During heavy rainfall runoff from their site enters the bay.
If this polluted soil is not ethically removed then I risk swimming in disgusting water .
Passing Mod 7 would exacerbate this issue by allowing contaminated soil to remain onsite and potentially leach into our waterways.
Furthermore,Mod 7 would eliminate independent checks, risking undetected issues and compromising my safety and the safety of my family which includes very young children.
Our community would lose rezoning rights for parks etc , potentially paving the way for more industrial businesses like BESS to enter our neighbourhood.
We already have the threat of this.
We don’t need or want this kind of hazardous business near us.
Totally not appropriate.
We would be living in endless uncertainty regarding our health and well-being.
Heavens, what a way to live!
As a community we prioritise the safety and well-being of ourselves, our children and future generations.
Im sure you feel the same about your loved ones and community.
We do not want to live in a hazardous environment and it’s crucial that you consider the Lo term consequences of your decision.
I heartily urge you to reject Mod 7.
Prioritise our health and safety over profits!
Future generations are relying upon you help them.
The children yogi would be helping are the future of Australia and they will be making decisions that will affect you in the future.
Regards
Glenn Letton

Hello,
I am a Kurnell resident and have been enjoying the amenities of this area for over 14 years.
I would like to see my lovely neighbourhood cleaner so me and my family can continue to enjoy living here.
Having witnessed firsthand the contamination events from the Ampol site, after heavy rainfall, I am very concerned about the health and wellbeing of me, my family and community.
Some family members who also reside in Kurnell include a 2 year old, 4year old,6 year old, 15yr old and 17 yr old. Their health is of the utmost importance to me as i'm sure you would agree.
The proposal to leave contaminated soil on site FOREVER is highly unacceptable to me.
Soil needs to be continually ethically removed and the land regenerated. Our health is at stake.
If you don't have your health you have nothing.
Ampol needs to be held accountable for their actions. Why was the land contaminated in the first place?
The funoff into our beautiful bay not only affects swimmwers like myself and the children but also the environment.
What about all the people who visit this area for recreational purposes throughout the year?
Their health is affected also.
No longer can we allow profit over people.
Those times, thank goodness , are long gone.
We have to change.
That means visibility and accountability by Ampol.
They cannot sweep this under the carpet and hide from their responsibilities.
If you allow this Mod 7 to pass then you too are complicit with this transgression.
Stand up for us and our kids.
How will history view your actions?
You could be condemning current and future residents to live with the threat of hazardous contamination hanging over ourheads permanently. Will you sleep well at night?
I know thousands of us won't.
I am a hardworking Australian.
I have been Nursing the residents of the Shire for over 40 yrs.
Many others like me actually love the Shire and our local community especially the children.
They are our collective future, even yours!
It's a very doable thing what we are asking of you.
Keep our land clean and free from contamination and exploitation.
How will history judge you?
Money and profit over the wellbeing of people is now an outdated model. As it should be.
Do the right thing.
Do not allow Mod 7 to be passed.

Regards
Cheryl Hilton
RN Dip Coun

Kurnell is a place of profound natural beauty and historical significance, cherished by both local residents and international visitors. As a site of deep cultural heritage for its Traditional Owners, it is also home to many families and children who deserve to live in a safe, clean, and healthy environment.

The proposal to permanently leave toxic contaminants on-site poses a serious and long-term risk to both public health and the surrounding environment. Given Ampol’s substantial financial gains from its operations in Kurnell, it is reasonable to expect the company to uphold its original commitment to fully remediate the site. Doing so would demonstrate genuine respect for the land, its Traditional Owners, and the broader community.

Residents have a right to expect that any company operating in their area will prioritize the health, safety, and environmental integrity of the region. Ampol’s decision regarding the clean-up will serve as a reflection of its values and commitment to responsible corporate citizenship.

As stewards of this unique and special place, we have a collective responsibility to safeguard Kurnell for future generations. Rejecting Modification 7 and ensuring a comprehensive clean-up is a necessary step in protecting the well-being of our community and preserving Kurnell’s environmental and cultural legacy.

Kurnell’s distinct blend of natural landscapes, cultural heritage, and community spirit makes it a national treasure. We must hold corporations accountable for their environmental obligations and work together to ensure this remarkable place remains protected for future generations.

Kurnell is a treasured location, steeped in history and natural beauty, making it a beloved destination for locals and international visitors alike. As a place of significant cultural heritage to the traditional owners, it's also home to many families and children who deserve to live in a safe and healthy environment. The proposal to leave toxic contaminants on-site forever poses a substantial risk to the well-being of our community and the environment.

Given Ampol's financial gains from its operations in Kurnell, it's reasonable to expect the company to prioritize the community's interests and fulfill its original commitment to properly clean up the site. This would be a fitting way to demonstrate respect for the land, its traditional owners, and the people who live and visit here. The community has a right to expect that companies operating in our area will prioritize our health, safety, and environment.

As a community, we have a responsibility to protect this special place for future generations. Rejecting Modification 7 and ensuring a thorough clean-up would be a crucial step in preserving the health, safety, and beauty of Kurnell. It's essential that Ampol takes its obligations seriously and prioritizes the well-being of the community and the environment. By doing so, the company can demonstrate its commitment to being a responsible corporate citizen and show respect for the community that has welcomed it.

Kurnell's unique blend of natural beauty, cultural significance, and community spirit makes it a precious asset that deserves to be protected. Let's ensure that this special place is preserved for generations to come by holding companies accountable for their actions and prioritising the well-being of our community.
Kind regards,
Karen Lincoln

Opposition to Modification 7 at Kurnell
I am in opposition of the approval of Modification 7 at Kurnell. Having lived in this community since 2017, our community has a beach, national park, wetlands, and local ovals where I spend time with friends and my kids play sports. This is a sacred space for Aboriginal people and also the birth place of modern Australia where Captain Cook first discovered our great nation.

It is deeply troubling to consider leaving contaminated soil—such as PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos—on-site indefinitely. Heavy rain and flooding could easily disperse these toxins into Botany Bay, the wetlands, and the areas where we swim, fish, and walk. They have had a spill in recent years which should not be overlooked or forgotten. Why should we jeopardize our health and the environment just to allow a large corporation like Ampol to save money? It makes so much profit!

Ampol initially committed to properly cleaning the land and transforming it into parkland or open space for our community, which was something we all looked forward to. Now, they are proposing to permanently zone the area for industrial use and merely cap the contamination instead of removing it. This is simply not acceptable.

If Modification 7 is approved, it will not only endanger public health and our environment but will also have negative impacts on the economy, local wildlife, tourism, and future development. It will lead to increased industry, noise, pollution, and less green space for families and children.

Ampol has made mistakes in the past, and it is crucial that they take responsibility for rectifying those errors.

I urge you not to let this happen. Kurnell is a special place, and we must protect it rather than allow it to become a permanent dumping ground. Ampol should fulfill their promise and clean it up properly. We deserve a safe future, free from toxic risks to the land and possibly to us residents .

I strongly oppose the approval of Modification 7 at Kurnell. I’ve lived here my whole life—15 years—and I love my community, the beach, the wetlands, and the local ovals where I hang out with friends and play sport. I also go fishing with my dad and mates. This proposal really worries me.

Leaving contaminated soil—like PFAS, hydrocarbons, and even asbestos—on-site forever is just wrong. Heavy rain and flooding could easily spread these toxins into Botany Bay, the wetlands, and the places we swim, fish, and walk. Why should we risk our health and environment just so a big company like Ampol can save money?

Ampol originally promised to clean the land properly and turn it into parkland or open space for the community. That was something to look forward to. Now they want to lock in industrial zoning forever and just cap the contamination instead of removing it. That’s not good enough.

If Mod 7 goes ahead, it doesn’t just put people’s health and our environment at risk—it also affects the economy, local wildlife, tourism, and future development. It means more industry, more noise, more pollution, and less green space for kids and families.

Please don’t let this happen. Kurnell is special. We need to protect it—not turn it into a permanent dumping ground. Ampol should do the right thing and clean it up properly, like they promised. We deserve a safe future, not one full of toxic risks.

Modification 7 at Kurnell. My immediate and extended family have lived in Kurnell for over 15 years. We care deeply about our local community and the environment. This proposal is deeply concerning.

The presence of contaminated soil on-site poses an unacceptable risk both local residents, visitors and the environment. This is morally reprehensible. The land must be properly cleaned with the complete removal toxins. If not cleaned properly, heavy rainfall and flooding (an often occurrence in Kurnell) could easily cause devastation with pollutants running off into our beloved bay. This will affect swimmers and marine life, who have an inherent right to enjoy their local waterways.

Ampol must be held accountable for environmental remediation to restore the site to its original condition. Ampol agreed to regenerate the land into a public parkland or recreational space—a commitment which the community has waited a long time to see honoured. Changing that plan now to suit corporate convenience is unacceptable.

This is about more than just soil. It’s about trust, responsibility, and the long-term health of people and our environment. We must not allow short-term profit to outweigh long-term community wellbeing.

This land should not become an industrial dumping ground passed between businesses. It should be restored to a safe, clean state—a place our children and grandchildren can enjoy without fear of contamination.

Please do not approve Modification 7. Make Ampol fulfil their original promise. Restore the land to how it was before they destroyed it—and give our community the safe, healthy future we deserve