1. Works associated with proposed new cell are likely to be highly disruptive and a health risk to local residents and ecosystem.
2. The Kurnell community has not been adequately consulted.
3. Once approved, there is low confidence that all health and safety risk mitigation strategies will be followed.
4. Kurnell should not be considered an ACS dumping ground.
5. Correct dust and noise monitoring procedures not in place.
6. Council should consider the future of Kurnell (ie. once the ACS cell is built it will stay for good)
7. The scope of work sets the precedence for Kurnell to become an asbestos dumping ground for future proposals/projects.
8. The proposal has the potential to negatively influence property prices in Kurnell.
9. Cell is likely to be visible with unpleasant aesthetics

As a resident of Kurnell I beieve that allowing the storage of asbestos already on site and having more asbestos brought in from other sites is a distaster waiting to happen. We have had more than our share of health hazards "dumped" on the area and last years' tornado is an excellent example of the dangers that we could face if that amount of asbestos was stored close to a residential area (roads closed, backlog of traffic, emergency vehicles unable to attend urgent situations, residents unable to live in their own homes etc). If asbestos is disturbed and spread amongst our community, the resulting costs in insurance payments and premiums would be disastrous. Note the asbestos danger and clean up operations that occured in residential streets post the tornado in December 2015. This is the birthplace of our nation and with anniversary celebrations looming who would want to pay homage in this type of environment? The peninsula has the potential to be a paradise amongst an otherwise over industrialised Sydney - please, for once, leave Kurnell alone!

My response below:
1. Works associated with proposed new cell are likely to be highly disruptive and a health risk to local residents and ecosystem.
2. The Kurnell community has not been adequately consulted.
3. Once approved, there is low confidence that all health and safety risk mitigation strategies will be followed.
4. Kurnell should not be considered an ACS dumping ground.
5. Correct dust and noise monitoring procedures not in place.
6. Council should consider the future of Kurnell (ie. once the ACS cell is built it will stay for good)
7. The scope of work sets the precedence for Kurnell to become an asbestos dumping ground for future proposals/projects.
8. The proposal has the potential to negatively influence property prices in Kurnell.
9. Cell is likely to be visible with unpleasant aesthetics

I object to the application to demolish and convert the Kurnell oil refinery into a housing facility for asbestos contaminated material.

I object on the grounds of;
- the local community not being informed adequately, or consulted about; the plans, the safety impact both short term and long term.

-This proposed solution is a short term solution and will eventually become abortive works that will have to be sorted in the years to come by someone else who didn't contaminate the land. The persons responsible who have created the mess should have to pay to fix it. The current occupier has come up with a cheap fix solution and has not considered the future. More than likely they will leave the materials behind for someone else to sort out down the track. I object to the permanent nature of the contamination cell. Toxic material such as asbestos contaminated soil should not be housed here permanently. It should be disposed of in accordance with the Environmental Protection Regulation Act 1998, and 2014 EPA Waste Regulations. Caltex have put this proposal forward as it is a cost efficient solution for their company, it does not consider the lifetime impacts on local residents, or the environment.

- This decision also sets a precedence for the treatment of hazardous materials for the site. A long term remedial action plan for the site should be considered, this is not a licensed facility to house this material.

-As a local resident I have concerns for leaching of asbestos fibres, contamination of the air, surrounding soil and waterways.
I question how the owners will, both during works and long term, inspect and maintain the structure and monitor any release of contaminants. How will the local community be informed of the ongoing monitoring? As we are PCBU's to the site the information should be released to ensure that there is no hazmat being released from the site.

-This will not only affect the health of residents and their families, but also negatively affect house prices in the Kurnell area.

- Kurnell is currently zoned as E4 Environmental Living. Converting this area to an asbestos cell goes against the principles of Environmental Living zoning. It sets precedence for companies to dump toxic waste in an area that has been zoned to protect the natural environment. In addition it is next to a National Park and the birthplace of modern Australia. This area should not be contaminated with deadly waste material.


I would prefer Caltex remove the waste and dispose of it elsewhere.

If this does go through I would request that a thorough risk assessment be undertaken by an impartial body and the results presented to local residents for input.

There should also be air monitoring undertaken and published on a daily basis to ensure local residents are not exposed to deadly asbestos fibres. Noise considerations and restrictions would also need to be agreed upon.

As a resident of Kurnell I beieve that allowing the storage of asbestos already on site and having more asbestos brought in from other sites is a distaster waiting to happen. Too often our country ignores the danger that asbestos poses and current regulations, which are often ignored with little or no penalty, are completely insufficient. Our village has had enough health hazards, from the dumping of carcinogenic jet fuel as the planes fly low overhead(yes we can smell it), to the refining and now storage of petrochemicals and the equally hazardous chemicals that are used alongside. Last year's tornado is an excellent example of the dangers that we could face if that amount of asbestos was stored in the facility. Half of the desal plant ended up in our backyards and houses. If that much asbestos was distributed amongst our community, our homes would become unliveable. Please, for once, could we please leave Kurnell alone.

1.Kurnell community not well informed about this.
2. Correct safety procedures not being fully adhered too
3. MASSIVE safety risk to Kurnell residents
4. Wind could effect direction of hazardous dust
5. House prices will be greatly affected for anyone wishing to sell
6. I won't want my children walking the streets whilst works are being done

Inform the village FIRST!!!

Health and safety to residents should be paramount when dealing with such a deadly substance. I see next to no benefits with negative impacts on the environment as well as the health and wellbeing of people.

Objection to Kurnell being a waste dump
Site.

1. Works associated with proposed new cell are likely to be highly disruptive and a health risk to local residents and ecosystem.
2. The Kurnell community has not been adequately consulted.
3. Once approved, there is low confidence that all health and safety risk mitigation strategies will be followed.
4. Kurnell should not be considered an ACS dumping ground.
5. Correct dust and noise monitoring procedures not in place.
6. Council should consider the future of Kurnell (ie. once the ACS cell is built it will stay for good)
7. The scope of work sets the precedence for Kurnell to become an asbestos dumping ground for future proposals/projects.
8. The proposal has the potential to negatively influence property prices in Kurnell.
9. Cell is likely to be visible with unpleasant aesthetics

1. Works associated with proposed new cell are likely to be highly disruptive and a health risk to local residents and ecosystem.
2. The Kurnell community has not been adequately consulted.
3. Once approved, there is low confidence that all health and safety risk mitigation strategies will be followed.
4. Kurnell should not be considered an ACS dumping ground.
5. Correct dust and noise monitoring procedures not in place.
6. Council should consider the future of Kurnell (ie. once the ACS cell is built it will stay for good)
7. The scope of work sets the precedence for Kurnell to become an asbestos dumping ground for future proposals/projects.
8. The proposal has the potential to negatively influence property prices in Kurnell.
9. Cell is likely to be visible with unpleasant aesthetics