I strongly oppose MOD 7. As a long-term resident of Kurnell, I want a safe and clean environment for my grandchildren to swim, play, and grow up free of harmful chemicals. For over 70 years, Ampol has polluted our land and waterways, and despite their considerable profits, there has been little transparency or accountability for proper remediation.

I am deeply concerned about what is seeping into our water table and the lack of independent information on water quality. What actual remediation has Ampol agreed to, or been directed to undertake? Who is testing the water, what are safe PFAS levels, and how can we obtain this data from a source other than Ampol itself? The community deserves these answers before any approvals are granted.

Additionally, the proposed selling and redevelopment of land raises further questions. When and how will residents be notified of who our new neighbours will be? How will stormwater runoff be managed, and where will it be directed? These are critical issues given Kurnell’s proximity to Ramsar-listed wetlands and our vulnerable coastal environment.

Frankly, we have little faith in Ampol or our elected representatives to put our community first. Time and again, promises have been broken while environmental damage continues. MOD 7 does nothing to rebuild trust—it simply allows Ampol to walk away without fully restoring the land they contaminated.

I stand proudly with my fellow residents in demanding a full and uncompromised remediation. No chemicals must be left behind. We want Kurnell to be beautiful, safe, and thriving again—for us, for our children, and for our grandchildren. I urge the Department to reject MOD 7 until Ampol fulfills its duty to completely clean and restore this land.

I am objecting to the Project SSD-5544 Mod 7. I am a Councillor on the Sutherland Shire Council and represent the Community on issues. There has been an overwhelming objection to this proposal with which I agree with the community. One of the main objections is the deferred critical remediation obligations for the contaminated areas within Zone 2 and 3 of the site. Caltex/Ampol have operated on the Site for many years and apparently there are legacy hydrocarbon and asbestos issues. I need to be assured that everything possible is done to remove these problems to ensure the safety and well being of all residents in Kurnell is protected. It does not appear to me that encapsulation is appropriate as a long term solution.
One of the issues between the residents and the Kurnell community is the lack of trust. I have been involved with the Kurnell Progress and Precinct committee for over 20 years as their local councillor. This trust between the community and the residents was severely battered in the oil spill several years ago which is still under investigation and appears to have damaged sensitive protected wetlands.
I object to this Mod7 proposal and ask on behalf of myself and the community for the Department to critically review the proposal to protect the community of Kurnell.

Please see attached letter.

To whom it may concern,

I write as a concerned resident of Kurnell to formally object to the proposed Modification 7 (Mod 7) to the existing development consent for the Viva Energy Kurnell Terminal.

This modification proposes to further industrialise the Kurnell site, which raises serious and legitimate concerns regarding environmental, health, and community impacts. I urge the Department to reject this modification on the following grounds:

1. Environmental Risks

Kurnell is a coastal community with significant ecological sensitivity, bordering Kamay Botany Bay National Park, Towra Point Nature Reserve, and protected marine environments. The increased storage, transfer, or processing of fuels and chemicals proposed in Mod 7 poses unacceptable risks of contamination to these fragile ecosystems, including:
• Potential leaks, spills, or vapour emissions affecting soil and groundwater quality.
• Increased risk of stormwater pollution reaching Botany Bay.
• Threats to biodiversity through habitat degradation and air/water pollution.

The environmental consequences of a mishap in this area could be catastrophic and irreversible.

2. Human Health Impacts

The Kurnell community has historically borne a disproportionate burden of industrial activity and its health effects. Mod 7 proposes intensifying operations that will further:
• Increase the level of airborne pollutants including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter.
• Contribute to long-term respiratory and cardiovascular health issues for residents, particularly the elderly, children, and vulnerable individuals.
• Add odour, noise, and light pollution, further reducing the liveability of the area.

Given the existing cumulative exposure of the community to industrial emissions, any further intensification of operations should be subject to the precautionary principle—especially in the absence of clear, independent baseline health data.

3. Bushfire and Safety Concerns

The refinery is situated in a bushfire-prone area. With climate change increasing the intensity and frequency of extreme weather, Mod 7 may escalate risk by increasing the volume of flammable materials stored onsite. The risk to life, property, and the surrounding natural environment must be taken seriously.

4. Community Amenity and Wellbeing

The proposal contradicts broader planning goals that aim to restore and improve the quality of life and natural amenity in Kurnell. The community has long sought a transition away from polluting industry toward more sustainable and ecologically-compatible uses for this coastal peninsula. This modification undermines those aspirations.

5. Lack of Genuine Community Consultation

There appears to be insufficient community engagement or genuine effort to involve residents in understanding the full impacts of the proposal. A project of this scale and risk profile requires transparent, accessible, and independent public consultation processes—something the current pathway lacks.

In light of the serious environmental, health, and social concerns outlined above, I strongly object to the approval of Modification 7 at the Kurnell site. I urge the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to act in the long-term interest of the community, the environment, and public health by refusing this modification.

I request to be notified of any decisions or further opportunities for public input regarding this matter.

This will impact the lives of my young children and my property

At the base of the issue, lies the underlying health and safety risks associated with refusing the safely dispose of hazardous waste materials.
Regardless of the safety nets put in place to 'reduce' or 'minimise' risk. Risk should not be reduced or minimised, if there is even the slightest chance of adverse risk to the residents, flora and fauna of the kurnel peninsula by not entirely removing the waste Caltex, Apologies and the state government have a fundamental responsibility to ensure it is removed and safely disposed of.

By refusing to do so, the parties involved are openly admitting that the health and safety of the residents, flora and fauna of Kurnell and by way of comparison the entire country has a dollar value associated.

The state government should take all necessary steps to enforce the removal of waste.

I respectfully submit my strong objection to Modification 7, which proposes the long-term containment — rather than removal — of toxic substances at the former Kurnell oil refinery site.

Kurnell is not just a postcode. It is one of the last remaining wild pockets of Sydney — a place of wetlands, bushland, and migratory bird habitat. It is home to native species, endangered flora, and intricate ecosystems that cannot survive contamination. The idea of burying hazardous materials such as PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos under soil and plastic, then fencing the area off as “managed,” is not a solution — it is abandonment.

These substances are known to leach into groundwater and runoff, particularly during extreme weather, flooding, or erosion. In Kurnell, these events are not theoretical — they are common. We have seen how tides breach banks, how storms carry silt and debris through drainage systems. Allowing contaminants to remain here, permanently capped, puts all surrounding ecosystems at ongoing risk: saltmarsh, mangrove, seagrass, and bird breeding zones, to name just a few.

The wetlands surrounding the refinery site are internationally significant. Migratory birds rely on these habitats for survival, as do native mammals, amphibians, and insects. Allowing toxins to remain in the soil will disrupt delicate food chains and create long-term bioaccumulation impacts we cannot yet measure.

We were told the land would be cleaned and restored. This modification breaks that commitment. It also locks the site into permanent industrial zoning, extinguishing any future hope of rehabilitation or community use.

There is nothing modern about containment. It is an outdated, dangerous method that passes the burden of responsibility onto future generations. Environmental justice means more than doing the bare minimum. It means doing what is right — and that means full removal of toxic materials.

Kurnell is not the place to take shortcuts. It has already endured decades of pollution and industrial misuse. It deserves real restoration — not just new fences and paperwork.

I urge you to reject Modification 7 and demand that Ampol follow through on the original commitment to clean up the site. Kurnell’s environment depends on it.

Objection to Modification 7: Reject Outdated, Non-Compliant Remediation Plan Endangering Kurnell’s Future
As a 60-year resident of Cronulla, I have visited Kurnell regularly to cycle and enjoy its natural beauty, where my son and his family now live. Since the 2014 refinery closure, Kurnell has transformed from an industrial shadow into a revitalized village, bustling with tourists daily, especially on weekends and holidays.
I strongly object to Modification 7. Ampol is legally obligated to removal contaminants off-site like PFAS, hydrocarbons, asbestos, heavy metals (As, Ni, Cu, Zn, Pb, Hg, Cd, Cr), BTEXN, OCP/OPP pesticides, phenols, PCBs, and VOCs/SVOCs. Mod 7 reverses this, proposing capping to lock in E5 heavy industrial zoning, enabling Ampol’s Kurnell Energy & Industry Precinct (KEIP) and Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) (Scoping Report_KEIP_FINAL). This prioritizes profits over my family’s safety and Kurnell’s future.
Ampol’s reliance on outdated policies and legislation renders the Mod 7 assessment non-compliant, invalidating it and necessitating its rejection. These obsolete standards fail to address critical health, environmental, and flooding risks, breaching EP&A Act transparency requirements. I have reviewed the Mod-7 document and attach a lift of outdated references.
The use of these outdated frameworks invalidates Mod 7’s assessment, as they fail to address heightened climate risks, stricter PFAS health standards, and enhanced environmental protections. This non-compliance with current regulatory standards compromises the proposal’s integrity, making it unfit for approval. The report must be rejected, and a new assessment conducted using up-to-date legislation and guidelines to ensure a robust, transparent evaluation protecting my family and community.
I am urging the NSW government to reject Mod 7 outright. Enforce off-site removal and transparent consultation aligned with current legislation. Kurnell’s future as a safe, vibrant, world-class destination—not dumping ground—depends on it, for my family and all who cherish this village.