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.

All of this goes against their premisses earlier. They leave poison rubish in the rest of future owners who cannot clean it up. Same as miners and their damage. Should not be allowed.

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.

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.

Dear Minister Scully,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Kurnell Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) by Ampol at their Kurnell terminal currently under consideration by the NSW Department of Planning.

1. Every day we hear of the devastation of lithium -ion battery
fires have caused and constantly warned by Fire and Rescue NSW of the danger of these batteries so how could you even consider approving BESS to be placed next to Australia’s largest fuel storage facility knowing the massive risk it imposes to the local community, including the Gweagal people being custodians of the land, Kamay Botany Bay National Park, the Ramsar listed wetland at Towra Point Nature Reserve. Do you want to approve a potentially massive global incident at Kurnell and then be asked why did you approve this once the devastation has been realised to human life, wildlife, the environment and knowing Kurnell is part of Australia’s history.

2. Kurnell has already been impacted by industrial developments
which has had a huge negative impact on the area's environment and living standards of the local community with no benefits provided.

3. Kurnell is located on a peninsula with only a one lane access
road in and out being Captain Cook Drive which is always busy nowadays so imagine if there was a massive explosion, fire, or chemical leak.
No one would stand a chance to evacuate nor could emergency services gain easy access.

4. Kurnell is located on the point of Botany Bay with often
strong winds moving through hazardous chemicals could be carried by easterly winds and affect the residents of the St George and Sutherland Shire local areas, if the winds where southerly then they would affect the residents at La Perouse, Little Bay and Mascot and northerly winds would affect the Cronulla community. I also note Kurnell is located under the flight path from Sydney Airports main runways so a massive catastrophe could be worsened if a plane was flying above at the time.

5. I refer you to the Ampol diesel/hydrocarbon incident on the
7th April 2022 from the current fuel storage facility (former
refinery) showing casing the inability of Ampol to responsibly follow required standards to managing a site. Refer to attached photo of the devastation to the Towra wetland reserve.

6. The government has paid from what I hear over a hundred
million dollars to install a ferry terminal to run from Kurnell to La Perouse so who would want to use it with the knowledge that a major incident may happen through the project being approved.

I would like to remind you what historical event occurred at Kurnell on the 29th April 1770, the landing of Captain Cook onto the shores of Kurnell. That is why there is a heritage-listed site being Captain Cook’s Monument in Kamay Botany Bay National Park which holds an important place in Australia’s history. Captain Cook Monument is one of the many historic heritage monuments along Burrawang walk in Kurnell area of the Kamay Botany Bay National Park. I refer to attached photos of the monument.

Kurnell is not a suitable location for BESS to be located and I urge this proposal to be rejected and alternative sites to be explored for energy storage that does not propose high risks to human life, wildlife and the environment. Let everyone be proud in Australia of the historical ‘Kurnell” and not be ashamed of it being known as a dumping ground, an industrial area and a location for a hazardous site and waiting for a possible catastrophe to happen.