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I am also concerned that out of date Australian Rainfall and Runoff Guide has been used to estimate the overland flood risk of MOD 7 in an area that is known to be flood affected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 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 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 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