By Chris Bishop, 2024.
Tronox (Laporte) factory entrance from the west, 2024.
Laporte Titanium (Australia) Limited (Laporte) and their sulphate process titanium dioxide pigment[1] producing premises on Old Coast Road, Australind, altered the mineral processing landscape of the wider South West. Arguably, it also altered the social and educational fabric of the surrounding community. The plant started up on 1 January 1964, but the machinations that led to this momentous occurrence need mention.
First we have the Liberal Member for the Legislative Assembly for Bunbury, George F. Roberts, in 1955 hinting at the behind scenes political moves to deliver Laporte, with the following statement:
All I hope is that in the near future the Government will receive favourable advice from London in regard to establishment of a certain industry that in all probability will- I certainly hope so- set up its activities in my electorate.[2]
The Brand–Watts and Brand–Nalder State Ministries, led by Liberal Premier David Brand, reigned from 1959 to 1971. These ministries oversaw strong economic development and sharp population growth. The Minister for Industrial Development for that period was Liberal Charles Court (later Premier of the State) who had a strong desire to promote industrial and mining investment and development in WA.[3]
An early success for Charles Court and his associates was to get Laporte to decide to proceed with their long stagnant Australind proposal in October 1960. To do this, generous economic incentives were offered. These included substantial State funding of the effluent disposal pipeline to the Leschenault Peninsula, and provision of land on the Peninsular for disposal. The Laporte Industrial Factory Agreement Act, 1961 provided strong incentives for the English proponents to build the premises, including the State Government accepting full responsibility for the effluent discharged via the pipeline for the next 50 years.[4]
Under the Laporte Industries Factory Agreement Act, 1961, the State assumed ‘total responsibility for the disposal of all effluent’. The Company had underwritten access to water (groundwater and Collie River water) and power, and State built housing for employees. The Company did not have to comply with certain requirements of the State’s legislation, including environmental aspects.[5]
Laporte’s premises were built on low-lying swampy land on Leschenault Location 31, Lot 4, bought from Cecil and Emily Clifton. This provided direct access to Old Coast Road and the Collie River. During construction and operation, it provided much needed diversified employment to Australind and Bunbury. It facilitated rejuvenation of activity at the Port of Bunbury and of the mineral sands mining industry, leading to increased funding for road and bridge building between the Australind site and the Port of Bunbury.[6]
In 1987, the Company was deemed an important source of employment, providing approximately 300 jobs in the Bunbury region and investing over $25 million since its establishment in 1964. Most of the 1987 product from the plant was exported, and had a value in excess of $60 million per year at full production (36,000 tonnes titanium dioxide per annum). The Australind plant was at time of construction one of two titanium dioxide plants in Australia, the first being at Burnie, Tasmania.[7]
Since 1964 there has been public and government concern about the plant’s environmental impact. This was both by individuals and via the Australind Progress Association. Public concern related to both personal experience and overall environmental concern. The performance of the effluent lagoons on the Leschenault Peninsula was an example of the latter. The daily effluent discharge was approximately 6,700 kL of liquid waste containing mainly iron (ferrous) sulphate and sulphuric acid. In 1987 there were 44 lagoons on the Peninsula, of which only a few were used for disposal at any one time. The lagoons were:
… oversaturated and because of their highly acidic contents have impacted upon the surrounding vegetation in places. The loss of vegetation has meant that some areas surrounding the lagoons have become unstable. In addition, some of the lagoons are located in naturally unstable areas. The effluent disposal and associated activities have meant that the rate of instability of these areas has increased.[8]
The pipeline ceased being used for effluent disposal in late 1990. Before its physical removal, it was opened up for public access for a short period. About 3,000 people took the 6 km return walk across the estuary at this time, including the author. A strong push to retain the pipeline support infrastructure as a tourist access to the Leschenault Peninsula and for fishing, never came to fruition. Reasons for this decision included the unnatural, visually intrusive element it provided, interference with water circulation in the estuary, and the projected ongoing maintenance costs.The causeway supporting some of the pipeline, with a fishing platform constructed at the end, was retained. [9]
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) advised in 1987 that it had received complaints regarding the SCM plant for a number of years. Odour, wastewater management and noise having been prominent concerns:
Noise readings taken in 1984 are shown in Table 6. Table 6 shows that the local residents experience excess noise levels ranging from 11 to 17 dB(A) which was evidence of commission of a nuisance under Section 8(3)(b) of the Noise Abatement Act.’[10]
The EPA has received a large number of submissions from local residents regarding the poor performance record of the Company in maintaining the plant and preventing pollution incidents from occurring. Three public submissions were accompanied by petitions containing a total of 1,128 signatures.[11]
The State Department that enforces the Environmental Protection Act 1986, monitors progress on the investigation and remediation of the site, by reviewing reports from the Company’s consultants and the contaminated sites auditor. These are prepared and provided to the State in response to classification of the site under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 relative to groundwater contamination, and to comply with the premises’ licence under the Environmental Protection Act 1986.[12]
In 1987, the EPA retrospectively concluded that:
… from an environmental viewpoint (and on today’s standards), it would have been inappropriate to initially locate the plant at Australind.
It recommended:
… that a condition of approval be that the existing sulphate-process plant, as described ‘redundant’ in the ERMP, should not operate beyond the 31 December 1989 (or at an extension of time determined under Section 8 of the Pigment Factory (Australind) Agreement 1986.[13]
There were local positives, if less obvious, related to the establishment of Laporte in the 1960s. These included:
- The positive influence of imported overseas technical and management specialists on local business and industrial practices.
- The economic spinoffs for local businesses that supplied goods and services to the factory and employees.
- Generation of a better interest in and understanding of the surrounding natural environment and its functioning.
- An increased focus on science subjects.
- Increased social and sporting engagement and funding.
- Creation of the Leschenault Peninsula conservation and recreation area.[14]
TIMELINE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
1961- Laporte Industrial Factory Agreement, 1961 enacted. The Agreement is binding on the parties for 50 years, i.e. until the year 2011.
1963- Bunbury administrative office opened.
1964- Australind factory production and site office commenced. The effluent was discharged directly to the Indian Ocean via a pipeline and shore discharge. Later that year flooding isolated the factory and complicated worker access – boat ferrying instigated.
1968- Ocean disposal terminated on environmental grounds and disposal in the dune swales on the Leschenault Peninsula commenced.
1969- The Governor General of Australia, Lord Casey, visited the site.
1970s- Major built additions to factory, and rapid production increases.
1979- Prince Charles (of England) visited the site.
1983- The EPA issued a detailed report which made a number of conclusions and recommendations about the sulphate process. The nub of the EPA’s report was that disposal on the Peninsula should cease as soon as possible. Need found for more disposal lagoons (and hence more land) on the Peninsula. Cabinet made funds available to purchase additional land, 100 hectares of which was to be used for waste disposal in the interim short term.
1984- A joint submission on effluent disposal was presented to Cabinet by the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Minerals and Energy, and the Minister for Water Resources.
1984- SCM Chemicals Ltd purchased the Laporte plant. SCM commenced a 12 month feasibility study on conversion of the plant to the environmentally safer chloride process.
1985- A report on environmental management proposals for land disposal up to 1988 was completed by Public Works Department, and submitted to the EPA for their comment.
1985- Leschenault/Kemerton Regional Park concept, which included the Leschenault Peninsula, presented to public in draft form, and comments sought.
1986- Pigment Factories Act (1986) passed to allow new plant at Kemerton and to allow cessation of effluent disposal on Leschenault Peninsula.
1988- Opening of new chloride process plant at Kemerton, with the Australind plant retained for finishing and packaging for export only.
1990- Final shutdown of sulphate process plant at Australind.
2019- Tronox Limited acquired the Australind plant from then owner Cristal Global.[15]
Laporte/SCM waste pipeline to Leschenault Peninsula, looking east towards the factory, March 1990.
………………………………………………………………….
[1] Titanium dioxide is manufactured from ilmenite and rutile, both of which are found in the southwest of Western Australia. The white pigment is used in paint, rubber and plastic.
[2] George Frederick Roberts, https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/library/MPHistoricalData.nsf/(Lookup)/F1730C57211CC50E482577E50028A79A?OpenDocument, Inaugural Speech, p. 368.
[3] https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/brand-sir-david-9571 and Charles Walter Michael Court, https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/library/MPHistoricalData.nsf/(Lookup)/5CD82876A7B82343482577E50028A586?OpenDocument, Inaugural Speech, pp. 222 – 227.
[4] See Peter T O’Shaughnessy, Laporte: a history of the Australind titanium dioxide project, Hesperian Press, Victoria Park, WA, 2011, and references given in footnotes 5-7. State Agreement Acts such as this one are a legal contract between the government of the State of Western Australia and a company to build or operate a specified development project. State Agreement Acts are bound by external regulations such as Commonwealth environment law, native title, and Indigenous heritage laws. State Agreement Acts can over-ride other laws of the State, such as environmental ones.
[5] Proposed Chloride Process Titanium Dioxide Plant at Australind, SCM Chemicals Ltd, Report & Recommendations of the Environmental Authority, Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia, Bulletin 275, May 1987, p.i, p.3, viewed 19 December 2024, https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/Journals/080218/080218-275.pdf and Laporte Factory Agreement Act 1961, viewed 19 December 2024, https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a6772.html
[6] Laporte Factory Agreement Act 1961, https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a6772.html
The completion of the lower Collie Bridge in 1962 was facilitated by the needs of Laporte to access the site with heavy building material vehicles, and later the Port of Bunbury with heavy export vehicles, that could not safely be accommodated by the 1911 bridge. Refer to Irma Walter, Collie River Bridge Story, Harvey History Online website, 2010, viewed 19 December 2024, https://www.harveyhistoryonline.com/?p=3527
[7] Proposed Chloride Process Titanium Dioxide Plant at Australind, p. 8, https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/Journals/080218/080218-275.pdf.
[8] Proposed Chloride Process Titanium Dioxide Plant at Australind, p. 9, https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/Journals/080218/080218-275.pdf, Also see newspaper articles, such as the South West Times, Feb 10 1972, p. 5 (Residents complain about smog, smells and noise). Also refer to JM Bailey & AN Saunders, Environmental History of the Titanium Dioxide Plant at Australind, Western Australia, Environmental Science Discussion Paper, 3/87, Murdoch University, 1987, viewed 19 December 2024, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11233817.pdf
[9] See Peter T O’Shaughnessy, Laporte: a history of the Australind titanium dioxide project, e.g. p.107.
[10] Proposed Chloride Process Titanium Dioxide Plant at Australind, p. 14 https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/Journals/080218/080218-275.pdf
[11] Proposed Chloride Process Titanium Dioxide Plant at Australind, p.17 https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/Journals/080218/080218-275.pdf
[12] ‘CRISTAL GLOBAL PLANT CONTAMINATION CONCERN Questions Without Notice’ 16 October 2012, p.6782-6783. Search https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/hansard.nsf/NewAdvancedSearch , enter ‘CRISTAL GLOBAL PLANT’ into ‘Search Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)’, tick ‘All Parliaments’ click on 16 October 2012, p.6782-6783. Accessed 30 December 2024.
[13] Proposed Chloride Process Titanium Dioxide Plant at Australind, p. i, https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/Journals/080218/080218-275.pdf
[14] Peter T O’Shaughnessy, Laporte: a history of the Australind titanium dioxide project, pp. 142-153.
[15] Various sources, including all footnote references.