Objection to Ampol’s Proposal for Modification of Kurnell Terminal (Mod 7)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong objection to Ampol's proposal for the modification of the Kurnell Terminal (referred to as "Mod 7"). While I am not a resident of the area, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts of this project on the environment, local residents, and the broader community—both now and in the future.
1. Environmental Risks and Sustainability
The Kurnell Terminal is situated in a highly sensitive coastal region with significant ecological value. The proposal to modify and expand the terminal poses serious risks to local wildlife, water quality, and the broader natural environment. With increased fuel storage capacity and higher throughput, the likelihood of accidents, including spills and leaks, grows exponentially. The surrounding marine and terrestrial ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to such disasters, which could result in long-term damage to local biodiversity.
Additionally, the environmental footprint of fossil fuel infrastructure like the Kurnell Terminal contributes to broader climate change issues. Given the growing global consensus on the urgent need for decarbonization and the transition to renewable energy sources, it is troubling that the proposal focuses on expanding fossil fuel infrastructure rather than investing in cleaner, more sustainable alternatives. This is a step backward in terms of our responsibility to future generations and our ability to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
2. Public Health and Safety Concerns
Though I am not a resident of the area, I recognize that the Kurnell Terminal’s location near populated areas—including residential neighbourhoods, schools, and recreational spaces—exposes local communities to a range of health and safety risks. These include potential exposure to hazardous emissions such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as well as the ever-present risk of fire or explosion in a facility that stores large quantities of fuel.
Even a small accident could have catastrophic effects on both human health and the environment. The consequences of a major disaster at a fuel terminal could be far-reaching, causing harm to residents, wildlife, and local infrastructure. It is crucial that this proposal is assessed rigorously for safety risks, and that the public is given confidence that appropriate measures are in place to protect people and the environment.
3. Impact on Local Communities and Future Generations
While I am not personally impacted by the immediate changes to the terminal, I am concerned about the long-term consequences for both current residents and future generations. The modification of the terminal would increase the frequency and scale of fuel movements, and with it, the likelihood of hazardous incidents. The increase in fuel storage and throughput would also exacerbate noise and air pollution, potentially reducing the quality of life for local residents.
Moreover, the local Indigenous communities, whose ancestral lands may be affected, must be meaningfully consulted. The Kurnell region holds historical and cultural significance, and the decision to expand fossil fuel infrastructure should not ignore the rights and concerns of Indigenous peoples. Their heritage, as well as their present and future well-being, must be given utmost consideration.
4. Missed Opportunity for Sustainable Energy Transition
It is deeply concerning that this proposal appears to prioritize the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when the world is increasingly shifting toward renewable energy solutions. Australia, as a nation, must take bold steps to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and support the growth of sustainable energy technologies such as solar, wind, and hydrogen. By modifying the Kurnell Terminal, Ampol is not only contributing to environmental degradation but also undermining efforts to transition to a cleaner, greener future.
This is a missed opportunity to align the project with the future energy needs of the nation. Rather than investing in infrastructure that supports outdated energy sources, Ampol should be considering how its resources can be redirected toward renewable energy projects that benefit both the environment and the community in the long term.
5. Lack of Adequate Public Consultation
Finally, I am concerned that the consultation process for this proposal has not been sufficiently transparent or inclusive. The public, especially those who live near the terminal or who are affected by the environmental consequences, should have the opportunity to voice their concerns and engage meaningfully in the decision-making process. The stakes are high, and decisions that affect the future of the community and the environment should be made with full participation from all stakeholders, not just from corporate interests.
________________________________________
Conclusion
I urge the relevant authorities to reconsider this proposal in its current form. The potential environmental damage, risks to public health and safety, and the missed opportunity to align with a sustainable energy future are issues that cannot be overlooked. I believe it is critical that we protect the environment for future generations, while also ensuring the well-being of current residents and communities.
I respectfully request that the concerns outlined above be fully addressed before any approvals are granted for the modification of the Kurnell Terminal.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,

Brendon Deguara

⸻

I strongly object to MOD 7 Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation due to its potential negative impact on the surrounding environment, community well-being, and heritage value. The proposed changes appear to prioritise infrastructure over the preservation of natural and community spaces, and may increase noise, traffic, and pollution in nearby residential areas. There is also insufficient evidence that adequate consultation has been conducted with the local community, and the long-term impacts remain unclear. I urge the Department to reconsider this modification and ensure that genuine community concerns are addressed with transparency and integrity.

As a local resident of Kurnell, I am writing to formally object to the MOD-7 Infrastructure Consolidation and Remediation proposal and the broader plans for the Kurnell Energy and Industry Precinct. While I support the need to remediate legacy industrial sites and I am not opposed to the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), I am deeply concerned that this project is laying the groundwork for a long-term expansion of heavy industry in an area that is increasingly residential and environmentally sensitive.

It is important to acknowledge that the Kurnell Terminal was formerly part of a large oil refinery, which was dismantled in 2014. Since then, the site has operated as a fuel import and storage terminal. The MOD-7 proposal seeks to remove outdated infrastructure and remediate contaminated land — a necessary and welcome step. However, the accompanying plans to subdivide the site and establish a permanent industrial precinct risk re-entrenching the area as a heavy industrial zone, rather than transitioning it toward more balanced or community-compatible uses.

My primary concern is the proximity of this industrial activity to residential areas. Kurnell is not just an industrial site — it is a community. Families live here, children go to school here, and people enjoy the natural beauty of nearby Botany Bay and Kamay National Park. Expanding heavy industry so close to homes and recreational areas is incompatible with the wellbeing of residents. The long-term impacts of increased traffic, noise, and potential environmental hazards have not been adequately addressed in the planning documents.

I also recognise that due to the site’s contamination history, it may not be feasible to convert the land into parkland or light residential use without significant restoration. However, this should not be used as justification to lock the site into permanent heavy industrial use. There are other possibilities — such as low-impact commercial development, conservation buffers, or community infrastructure — that could provide value without compounding the environmental and social burdens already borne by this area.

The proposal also lacks a clear commitment to community benefit. There is no indication that any part of the site will be made accessible to the public or rehabilitated for shared use. The entire precinct appears to be reserved for industrial development, with no meaningful offset for the local community. This is a missed opportunity to restore balance between development and livability.

I am also concerned about the precedent this sets. By subdividing and rezoning the site for industrial use, the government is effectively committing the area to a future of heavy infrastructure, with limited flexibility to adapt to changing community needs or environmental priorities. Once this path is taken, it will be difficult to reverse — even if public opposition grows or environmental impacts worsen.

Finally, I question whether the broader community has been meaningfully consulted. The technical complexity of the documents and the limited accessibility of the consultation process make it difficult for everyday residents to engage. I urge the government to extend consultation, provide clearer summaries, and genuinely consider alternative futures for the site.

In conclusion, while I support the remediation of the site and do not oppose the BESS project, I strongly object to the broader industrial expansion of the Kurnell site. I urge the government to reconsider the long-term vision for this area, prioritise community wellbeing, and explore alternatives that do not re-entrench heavy industry in a residential and environmentally sensitive region.

I have recently bought and moved into a home in Kurnell, I have lived within the Sutherland Shire for most of my life, having grown up in Menai. Kurnell has always been a nice suburb but had the stigma attached to it from the refinery. The announcement the refinery was closing it’s operation down in 2014 was a good thing, not only on an appearance level, but the smell has gone as has the giant flame that was visible from all the way from Sylvania at night.
I strongly oppose the BESS batteries to be allowed to be placed within the confines of the Ampol site, it seems ludicrous for it to even be tabled as a somewhat intelligent idea. There is one road in one road out, the site borders Kamay National Park and is currently being utilised to store fuel. The site is also close to a flight path. There seems to be absolutely no regard to the safety of the environment or the residents.
I also strongly oppose the motion of MOD 7 to passed, what an absolute joke, the NSW government has spent millions of dollars upgrading Kamay Bay National Park facilities to be enjoyed by everyone, keeping in line to retain our national heritage along with the indigenous. It seems to be a waste considering all of the efforts of conservation and preservation to protect everything for generations to come, wildlife and plantlife seems to be completely disregarded with Ampol and their idea to permanently contaminate the earth. If it was any other private land owner there would be no way this motion would be acceptable.
A BESS battery farm within range of 750 million litres of fuel storage does not seem like a good idea, and the idea of Ampol not required to remediate soil seems even worse. The impacts it will have on the safety of residents and the implications on nature will not be reversible. Please do not approve any of the above, it’s not only dangerous but flat out stupid. Anyone who votes a yes on this should hang their heads in shame.

As a Sutherland Shire resident for 61 years and a home owner in Kurnell for the past 4 years I strongly disagree with the project. We purchased a family property in Kurnell for multi generational living to enable our adult children the opportunity to get into the housing market. I feel not enough consideration has been given to the Kurnell residential community in relation to how this will affect their housing investments. We are regular income earners and have worked very hard to achieve this family goal. I have read a lot of information about the proposed project and the impact that this project will have on the environment, flora and fauna but has anyone documented any information on how this will effect people's property values. This is very disappointing and I think more consideration should be given to the people of the community of an area that is full of history and native flora and fauna. I am no professional essay writer but am very concerned about how this project with effect not only the community but most importantly my family. We are truly heartbroken.

Objection to Modification 7 – Kurnell

I am writing to express my strong opposition to Modification 7 proposed for the Kurnell site. As a local resident, I am deeply concerned about the serious risks this project poses to the health of our community and the long-term well-being of our environment.

The proposal allows for the ongoing presence of dangerous contaminants on-site—including PFAS, hydrocarbons, and asbestos—under a plan to simply cap the pollution rather than remove it. This shortcut is reckless. In an area prone to heavy rainfall and flooding, these toxins could easily be washed into surrounding ecosystems like Botany Bay and local wetlands, contaminating the very places where we live, fish, swim, and enjoy nature.

This isn’t just theoretical—on 7 April 2022, Ampol spilled thousands of litres of hydrocarbons into the local environment during a rain event, exposing the community to harmful toxins. Despite this history, they are now seeking to avoid proper land remediation and instead push for permanent industrial zoning. This is a clear attempt to prioritise cost-cutting over community safety and environmental responsibility.

This modification would lock in more industrial development, increasing pollution, noise, and traffic, while stripping away precious green space. It would damage local tourism, harm wildlife, and limit future opportunities for sustainable development.

Kurnell is surrounded by unique and ecologically important areas like Towra Point and Quibray Bay—critical habitats for migratory birds and mangrove systems. These environments cannot be sacrificed for corporate convenience.

I urge the NSW Government to reject this proposal. We deserve better than a capped contamination site in our backyard. The land should be properly rehabilitated, as originally promised, and returned to the community as safe, open green space.

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.

The consequences of industrial activity in Kurnell have already been felt. To add to this disregard’s any consideration or concern to the people and local environment. It would be unfair and irresponsible for this project to be approved.

I urge the Department to reject Mod 7. Kurnell deserves to be a place that is safe and healthy to live.

Please choose community well-being.

The project is againts the environment

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 10 years and now own our factory out there. It’s where my children grew up and where generations of us have lived and feel so lucky to have called Kurnell home.

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.

Having lived through 2 natural disasters - the tornado and bush fire that spread throughout the coastline - we were so terrified of the impact the past use of the land could have if any of the residual oil caught fire.

The threat of dangerous harmful chemicals being so close to homes, day care centre, schools (not even in Kurnell but local suburbs) & eventually more tourists with the new wharf built scares our family. The amount of people that will be exposed to these dangerous chemicals is beyond just a tiny suburb. So many people work in Kurnell and visit the birth place of Australia, how could you allow a corporate giant who has more than enough profit to dispose of their own contaminated waste while knowing dramatically damage the land and people around them.

We all have to dispose of our chemicals properly - why don’t they?

The endangered migrating birds, whales and many other animals will be affected as these chemicals leech into the water.

By allowing this you are forever changing the land and locking it into industrial use forever.

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.
I know of no business that are allowed to dispose of their own contaminated waste however they feel fit without any standards or checks.
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.