I write to strongly object to MOD 7 on behalf of concerned residents of Kurnell. At our recent Kurnell Progress and Precinct Meeting (16 July 2025), it was unanimously agreed that MOD 7 is unacceptable and poses a long-term risk to our community, environment, and future opportunities for Kurnell.

Key concerns raised include:

Failure to Fulfil Original Commitments:
Under the original remediation agreement, Ampol was required to fully remove contaminated soil, groundwater pollutants (including PFAS), hydrocarbons, and asbestos waste from the site. MOD 7 proposes to abandon this commitment by capping contaminants and leaving them permanently onsite. This is a cost-cutting measure that places public health and environmental safety at risk.

Loss of Independent Oversight:
Residents noted that MOD 7 removes external auditing requirements. Instead of being accountable to regulators, Ampol would self-monitor contamination, reducing transparency and weakening compliance with environmental standards.

Zoning and Industrial Legacy:
If MOD 7 is approved, the contaminated land would remain zoned as heavy industrial (E5). This locks Kurnell into a perpetual industrial state, enabling further subdivision and industrial development such as batteries, sustainable aviation fuel facilities, and other hazardous uses, with no pathway to rehabilitate and return the land to the community.

Flooding and Runoff Risks:
Residents highlighted that retaining contaminants onsite increases risks of leaching and flooding impacts during heavy rainfall events. We have already seen contamination spread into wetlands and residential areas in previous floods, causing significant environmental harm.

Tourism and Environmental Vision:
Kurnell is on the cusp of becoming a cultural and tourism hub with the $128 million investment in the Gamay Visitor Centre and Indigenous heritage initiatives. Allowing MOD 7 would undermine this vision, deterring tourism and degrading Ramsar-listed wetlands adjacent to the site.

Community Trust and Safety:
Residents expressed clear mistrust in Ampol and elected representatives due to repeated broken promises and ongoing pollution incidents. We demand an environment where our children and grandchildren can swim, play, and live free from harmful chemicals.

The Kurnell community calls on NSW Planning to reject MOD 7 outright. Ampol must be compelled to meet its original remediation obligations and fully restore the site. We demand independent testing, transparent oversight, and a vision that aligns with Kurnell’s environmental and tourism potential—not another industrial legacy.


Kurnell Progress and Precinct Residents Association (KPPRA).

Subject: Formal Objection to Modification 7 (MOD-7) – Inadequate Remediation of Contaminated Industrial Site, Kurnell Peninsula

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed Modification 7 (MOD-7), which relates to the remediation of a contaminated industrial site located on the Kurnell Peninsula. My objection stems from serious concerns regarding the insufficient nature of the proposed remediation works and the subsequent risks posed to public health and the surrounding environment.

Context:
The site in question has a well-established record of industrial contamination, necessitating a full and proper clean-up to address the environmental and health hazards it presents. The community—and broader public—have a right to expect that all remediation efforts will be complete, transparent, and aligned with best environmental practices. MOD-7 appears to authorise, or at the very least tolerate, a standard of remediation that fails to address all known contaminants or their migration pathways in a comprehensive way.

Grounds for Objection:

1. Insufficient Clean-up and Continued Contamination Hazards
At the core of this objection is concern that MOD-7 allows for remediation that leaves behind residual contamination. Pollutants may persist in the soil, groundwater, or other environmental media. These residues can continue to leach, volatilise, or migrate—posing potential hazards to adjacent ecosystems, such as Botany Bay, and increasing the likelihood of human or wildlife exposure.
Such a scenario is inconsistent with environmental protection principles, which demand that contamination be removed or rendered harmless to ensure the land is safe for its intended use and no longer presents a risk to surrounding environments.

2. Endangerment of Public Health
Failure to fully remediate the site may expose local residents, workers, and recreational users to dangerous substances. Exposure routes include inhaling contaminated vapour, ingesting tainted soil or dust, or contact with polluted water sources.
Industrial contaminants such as hydrocarbons, PFAS, and heavy metals are known to have long-term health consequences, and merely reducing—not eliminating—them does not provide sufficient protection.

3. Threat to Environmental Values and Biodiversity
The Kurnell Peninsula encompasses vulnerable and ecologically valuable areas, including terrestrial habitats and the marine environments of Botany Bay. Incomplete remediation risks ongoing contamination of these sensitive ecosystems, which could diminish biodiversity, degrade water quality, and harm critical habitats.
Particularly at stake is the wellbeing of species reliant on these ecosystems and the long-term ecological stability of the region.

4. Failure to Comply with Legislative and Environmental Standards
All remediation work should comply fully with NSW and federal environmental legislation, as well as with best-practice guidance for contaminated land management. The current proposal, by facilitating partial remediation, falls short of these standards and undermines the legal and regulatory framework intended to ensure public and environmental safety.
There must be explicit confirmation that the MOD-7 plan will satisfy all Site-Specific Remediation Criteria (SSRC) for each identified contaminant and pathway.

5. Transparency and Long-Term Oversight Deficiencies
There is insufficient clarity regarding the reasons for, and implications of, the proposed reduction in remediation scope. Equally concerning is the lack of detailed information about long-term monitoring and mitigation measures.
Any consideration of MOD-7 should be conditional on the implementation of an ongoing, independent, and publicly accessible monitoring regime capable of detecting and responding to contaminant migration or health risks over time.

6. Risk of Setting a Harmful Precedent
Approval of MOD-7 could send a troubling signal across NSW: that companies are not obliged to undertake full-scale clean-ups of contaminated sites. This would severely weaken the state’s commitment to responsible land management and environmental rehabilitation, and potentially impact future contaminated land cases.

Specific Incident and Legislative Breach:
While I am not a resident of Kurnell, I am gravely concerned by the broader implications for environmental justice. MOD-7 effectively enables Ampol to walk away from its full responsibility to rehabilitate the site thoroughly.
According to the Australian Oil Refining Agreements Act 1954 (No. 34) (p. 33), the entity occupying the land covered under MOD-7 must not endanger public health. Yet on 7 April 2022, 9,000 litres of diesel were released into Kurnell Village and nearby waterways due to negligent fuel storage practices—directly breaching this statutory obligation.
The spill, exacerbated by heavy rain, caused widespread chemical dispersal. Residents reported symptoms such as headaches, eye and throat irritation, and nausea. Wildlife deaths were also reported. Despite the EPA imposing a $700,000 penalty, evidence suggests the incident caused long-lasting damage to both the community and the environment—particularly the Towra Point Nature Reserve, a RAMSAR-listed site of international ecological significance.

Further, the Act (p. 27) clearly forbids any discharge into Botany Bay unless proven to be entirely harmless to marine life. It mandates full compliance with pollution prevention directives issued by the Chief Secretary’s Department and the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board. These obligations have not been met.
MOD-7 also proposes dismantling parts or all of the oily water separation system, which would inevitably raise the volume of untreated runoff entering local bays and wetlands. Allowing such pollution into a RAMSAR-protected site would be not only unlawful but ethically indefensible.

Requested Actions:
In light of the above, I respectfully urge the Department to take the following actions:
1. Reject MOD-7 in its current form if it allows for anything less than a full and thorough remediation.
2. Require Ampol to carry out a complete clean-up that eliminates all contaminants and risks, in accordance with best practice and applicable legislation.
3. Insist on a revised remediation plan that sets out how all contaminants will be dealt with and how the site will be validated and monitored long term, with clearly defined response mechanisms.
4. Guarantee full transparency for the public by releasing all remediation documentation and monitoring data.

The environmental integrity of the Kurnell Peninsula and the health of surrounding communities must not be sacrificed for expediency or cost-cutting. I urge you to prioritise long-term safety, accountability, and ecological responsibility in your decision-making.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

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.

I am writing to strongly oppose MOD 7 on behalf of myself. A separate submission will be made by the Kurnell Precinct Committee, which has unanimously voted against this proposal.

As a resident of Kurnell for the past eight years, I moved here for its unparalleled coastal beauty, national parks, and the outdoor lifestyle including surfing, hiking, mountain biking, swimming, and enjoying the spectacular sunsets over the Georges River.

Kurnell is a place of extraordinary potential. It is rich in Indigenous history, natural beauty, and recreational opportunities. With $78 million already invested in upgrading the wharves connecting La Perouse to Kurnell and an additional $50 million committed to the world-class Gamay Visitor Centre, bringing a total of $128 million in government-backed cultural and tourism funding, it is clear that Kurnell is being positioned as an international tourism hub. The return of the historically significant Gweagal spears to this new centre is a landmark achievement, telling the story of the "Meeting of Two Cultures" and cementing Kurnell’s global cultural importance.

In this context, it is inconceivable that MOD 7 would allow the capping of contaminated land, noisy and odorous industry, and increased stormwater pressure to define Kurnell’s future. Such an industrial legacy stands in stark contradiction to the vision of a pristine, world-class tourism destination that honours its history while showcasing our incredible natural assets.

Our vision is clear. Fully remediate the redundant Ampol site and restore it as an extension of Kamay National Park, a haven for families, international visitors, and nature enthusiasts alike. Imagine tourists whale-watching from our headlands, cycling along scenic coastal trails, enjoying safe swimming beaches, and learning about Australia’s Indigenous heritage in a world-class cultural setting. This is the Kurnell we must strive for, not one marred by lingering toxins and industrial scars.

MOD 7 does not pass the 'pub test' or align with the substantial investment already being made to transform Kurnell into a jewel in Sydney’s tourism crown. I urge the Department to reject this application and instead demand full remediation, allowing Kurnell to realise its true potential as a premier destination for cultural, environmental, and recreational tourism.

Let us create a future where Kurnell stands proud as a gateway to Australia’s story, a place that inspires, educates, and welcomes the world.

Signed,
Robert Stanley-Jones

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

As a long-term resident of the Kurnell area, I strongly object to MOD-7 and the ongoing industrial expansion it represents. While the proposal is framed as "remediation," it appears to be more about consolidating and prolonging industrial use rather than restoring the land for community or environmental benefit.

One of my biggest concerns is the loss of native vegetation, especially in areas identified as containing Threatened Ecological Communities. These pockets of remnant bushland are some of the last remaining habitats for local wildlife and should be protected, not cleared. Once gone, they cannot be replaced.

I'm also very worried about contamination risks. The site is already known to contain PFAS, petroleum products, asbestos, and other hazardous materials. While remediation is needed, the handling and movement of contaminated soil brings its own risks—especially to groundwater and nearby waterways. We need absolute transparency and rigorous independent monitoring, not vague assurances.

This project also continues the industrial legacy of a site that has already caused environmental harm in the past. As a community, we had hoped to see the area rehabilitated into something beneficial—perhaps public parkland, a conservation zone, or low-impact development. Instead, this proposal reinforces the site's ongoing use for fuel infrastructure, with little or no community gain.

Finally, emergency risks remain a serious concern. There is only one road in and out of Kurnell. In the event of a fire or chemical incident—as we've seen before—our ability to evacuate safely is compromised. Adding further industrial infrastructure only increases that risk.

In short, MOD-7 does not serve the best interests of the environment or the local community. I urge the Department to reject this modification and to prioritize true rehabilitation and long-term environmental recovery instead.