ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Health Risk Assessments for Alumina Refineries

A. Michael Donoghue, MBChB, MMedSc, PhD and Patrick S. Coffey, BE, BA, MSc

facilities. See, for example, Queensland Health1 ; an assessment

Objective: To describe contemporary air dispersion modeling and health
that took into account a number of industrial sources in a region,
risk assessment methodologies applied to alumina refineries and to summa-
including coal-fired power stations, alumina refining, and aluminum
rize recent results. Methods: Air dispersion models using emission source
smelting.
and meteorological data have been used to assess ground-level concentra-
Choice of dispersion model to be used can be critical in de-
tions (GLCs) of refinery emissions. Short-term (1-hour and 24-hour average)
termining the accuracy and reliability of GLC predictions. For point
GLCs and annual average GLCs have been used to assess acute health, chronic
and fugitive area sources, a range of models is typically used on
health, and incremental carcinogenic risks. Results: The acute hazard index
the basis of suitability for the conditions, terrain, and source types.
can exceed 1 close to refineries, but it is typically less than 1 at neighbor-
The Australian Aluminium Council sponsored a review of best prac-
ing residential locations. The chronic hazard index is typically substantially
tice modeling techniques in the alumina industry (PAE Holmes Ltd,
less than 1. The incremental carcinogenic risk is typically less than 10−6 .
2009), and the practice of HRAs in Australia has generally followed
Conclusions: The risks of acute health effects are adequately controlled, and
the recommended dispersion models and techniques as reviewed.2
the risks of chronic health effects and incremental carcinogenic risks are
Terrain effects are taken into account either directly via wind field
negligible around referenced alumina refineries.
modeling and use of models with complex terrain capabilities, such
as Calmet/Calpuff or “The Air Pollution Model,” or by quantification

H ealth risk assessments (HRAs) based on air dispersion model-

ing of alumina refinery emissions have proved useful to assess
and communicate risks. The aims of this article are to outline the
of speed-up factors that are then applied to wind data.2 Computa-
tional fluid dynamics modeling has been used in recent applications
to quantify areas of high or low wind speed that may be important in
methodology of air dispersion modeling and HRA, discuss the choice determining dust (high–wind speed effect) or odor (low–wind speed
of air dispersion models, describe the general features of alumina effect) behavior.
refinery air emissions, and give the results of recent HRAs at alumina Uncertainties in modeled estimates of exposure arise from var-
refineries. ious sources, including combined emission value uncertainty, model
uncertainty, and meteorological variability. Uncertainty of modeled
METHODS versus observed GLCs is typically within ±50% at the 95% con-
Air Dispersion Modeling fidence level for substances with substantial emissions data sets.3
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that
Monitoring of emission sources and ambient receptors cannot
errors in modeled highest estimated concentrations are typically be-
provide complete geographic and temporal coverage of the distribu-
tween ±10% and ±40%.4
tion of air emissions in an environment surrounding a refinery. It
Where HRA outcomes approach or exceed guideline values, it
is, therefore, desirable to use air dispersion modeling techniques to
becomes important to test assumptions underlying dispersion mod-
more fully describe and document the likely distribution of air con-
els by conducting sensitivity analyses to such issues as assimilation
taminant values in space and time. The approach most commonly
of predicted winds with local observations, uncertainty of emission
adopted is to document the sources and substances emitted in an
rate estimates, and choice of model and parameter settings within
emissions inventory, then to input the emission rates to atmospheric
the model. For example, dispersion over warm and weakly buoyant
dispersion models to provide predictions of ground-level concentra-
sources such as refinery cooling ponds was observed from compu-
tions (GLCs) of substances that could potentially cause or contribute
tational fluid dynamics modeling to be highly direction dependent
to health effects.
according to the incident wind variation to pond orientation (length
Sometimes HRAs are based solely or primarily on ambient
to width ratios).5 This behavior, in turn, influenced the initial plume
air monitoring data, rather than air dispersion modeling data—
rise that occurred, such that there were marked differences in down-
particularly where complex air sheds involve multiple industrial
wind GLCs across-axis compared with along-axis.
Health risk assessments of Alcoa refineries have tended to
From Alcoa of Australia, Perth, Western Australia. predominantly use the air dispersion models Calpuff and The Air
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Pollution Model, with The Air Pollution Model used mainly for
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License, where it is permis-
sible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work point sources, including tall buoyant sources with minimal wake
cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. effects, whereas Calpuff has been the model of choice for large-area
Dr Donoghue is the Director of Health and Chief Medical Officer for Alcoa of sources where emission rates are driven by wind processes, such as
Australia, and Mr Coffey is Principal Environmental Consultant—Air, for fugitive dust generation.6 Where two models are used for different
Alcoa of Australia.
Both the authors are full-time employees of Alcoa of Australia. The manuscript types of sources, it becomes necessary to add the outputs hour by
was written in the course of their employment. Dr Donoghue holds shares in hour and at each grid point.6 Care must be taken to ensure that the
Alcoa Inc. He is a member of the International Aluminium Institute’s Health model time steps used match exactly, so that statistics generated
Committee and the Australian Aluminium Council’s Health Panel. The authors by the combination of outputs are representative and comparable.
were invited to write the manuscript by the International Aluminium Institute,
but no funding was received from the Institute. For example, the conditions that lead to maximum fugitive dust
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. exposures are frequently associated with strong winds, conditions
Address correspondence to: A. Michael Donoghue, MBChB, MMedSc, PhD, that tend to lead to lower GLCs for releases from tall point sources. If
Alcoa of Australia, PO Box 252, Applecross, Western Australia, Australia outputs are not matched exactly in time and, instead, maximum values
6953 (michael.donoghue@alcoa.com.au).
Copyright  C 2014 by American College of Occupational and Environmental
of different source contributions to a location were simply added, it
Medicine would erroneously attribute a combined effect that, in practice, would
DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000011 not happen.

S18 JOEM r Volume 56, Number 5S, May 2014

Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
JOEM r Volume 56, Number 5S, May 2014 HRA for Alumina Refineries

Health Risk Assessment The HARP assessment found that exposure by pathways other
Ground-level concentrations generated by air dispersion mod- than inhalation had potential to be significant only for the metals ar-
eling are used to assess three types of health risks: senic and cadmium. Cadmium made only a very minor contribution
to the CHI, and as the maximum CHI itself was so small, exposures
• Risks of acute health effects via dermal absorption and ingestion would not make any appreciable
• Risks of chronic health effects difference to the overall CHI, justifying the exclusion of alternative
• Incremental carcinogenic risks pathways for cadmium. Arsenic exposure via inhalation was a sig-
Short-term GLCs are used to assess the risks of acute health nificant contributor to the predicted ICR, however; so it received
effects. Typically 99.9th percentile 1-hour average GLCs and 99.5th further evaluation. The HARP program indicated that the inhalation
percentile 24-hour average GLCs are used, to represent an estimate of exposure pathway was likely to account for approximately 75% of
near worst-case conditions, which by definition occur infrequently. the carcinogenic exposure to arsenic. The remaining 25% of the ex-
Annual average GLCs are used to assess the risks of chronic health posure was predicted to occur as a result of soil ingestion (14%),
effects and incremental carcinogenic risks. vegetable ingestion (8%), dermal absorption (2%), and drinking wa-
The risks of acute health effects and chronic health effects are ter ingestion (1%). Incorporating these additional pathways in the
assessed by calculating the acute hazard index (AHI) and chronic Wagerup refinery assessment meant that the total ICR for all com-
hazard index (CHI), respectively. These are each calculated as the pounds would have increased from 0.63×10−6 to 0.72×10−6 at the
sum of hazard quotients for each compound, where the hazard quo- maximum receptor, which is less than the US EPA “de minimis”
tient is calculated as the GLC divided by the relevant health-based level of 1 × 10−6 . Therefore, the alternative exposure pathways for
ambient air quality guideline concentration—for the relevant averag- arsenic were not expected to have contributed significantly to the
ing period. This approach assumes additive relationships, conserva- ICR at the maximum receptor and would have contributed even less
tive, given the diversity of toxicological properties of the compounds at other receptors. Noting that the assumptions inherent in the HARP
under assessment. are designed to err on the side of health protection to avoid under-
Unit risk factors, published by agencies such as the US EPA estimation of risk to the public (Office of Environmental Health
and the World Health Organization, give, for each carcinogen of Hazard Assessment13 ), it is reasonable to confine the HRA pathways
interest, the upper-bound probability of cancer that would be ex- to the inhalation route, in the knowledge that other pathways will not
pected with continuous exposure to an inhaled concentration of 1 significantly affect the overall assessed risk level.
μg/m3 over 70 years.7,8 Incremental carcinogenic risk (ICR) is the
incremental upper-bound probability of an individual developing RESULTS
cancer as a result of lifetime exposure to a carcinogen at a speci- Emission Sources
fied concentration. This incremental probability is over and above Alumina refinery sources may be divided into point and fugi-
the probability of cancer occurring as a result of other factors— tive sources. Point sources include stacks, vents, open-top tanks,
that is, the background incidence rate of cancer. The ICR of each and vessels in the Bayer process areas of the refinery, as well as
compound is calculated by multiplying the relevant unit risk factor stacks and cooling towers associated with powerhouse sources, boil-
by the annual average GLC. The total ICR is then calculated by ers, and gas turbines. Point sources may be further divided into
summing the ICRs for each compound. This again assumes additive low- and high-level sources, buoyant and nonbuoyant releases, and
relationships, conservative, given the specificity generally shown by low- or high-moisture content sources. Some of these sources are
carcinogenic agents for particular types of cancer. The US EPA “de relatively complex to reliably measure and derive reliable emission
minimis” ICR is 1 × 10−6 . This incremental risk, which equates rates for, particularly, low-level, nonbuoyant, and high-moisture con-
to less than one person in a million, is regarded as negligible from tent sources.
the US EPA regulatory perspective. Tolerable ICRs vary among reg- Fugitive sources include area sources, such as bauxite
ulatory jurisdictions, typically between 10−6 and 10−4 , with 10−5 residue–storage areas, cooling ponds, bauxite stockpiles, and loading
gaining acceptance in some jurisdictions.9,10 and transfer areas, such as train- and ship-loading facilities. These
Hazard indices and ICRs are computed for each point on a types of sources also involve difficult measurement, estimation,
grid around the refinery. Corresponding contours are often plotted and/or release intermittency challenges.
on maps or aerial photographs, representing the AHI, CHI, and ICR When assumptions are made about emission sources, both
at locations/receptors near to the refinery. This can aid presentation point sources and fugitive sources, as part of the HRA process,
to stakeholder groups. Health risk assessment methodology has been they are deliberately conservative and precautionary—tending to
described in more detail by the enHealth Council of Australia.11 overestimate the effect on point risk estimates.
Noninhalation Pathways Case Studies in Australia
Alumina refinery HRAs conducted to date have concentrated There have now been at least five HRAs undertaken for alu-
mainly on the air inhalation pathway. Inhalation is expected to rep- mina refineries in Australia, with reports publicly available on the
resent the most significant exposure route for atmospheric emission Internet. See, for example, the Wagerup refinery, Pinjarra refin-
sources. Compounds tending toward the particulate phase have been ery, and Pinjarra residue HRAs undertaken on behalf of Alcoa, the
investigated as potential candidates for multipathway exposure, as Worsley refinery expansion HRA undertaken for BHP Billiton, and
these may deposit on surfaces and so become available for ingestion. the QAL Gladstone refinery HRA undertaken for Queensland Alu-
The Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) mina Limited.12,14–17 The outcomes of these HRAs were as follows.
methodology, developed in consultation with various Californian
environmental agencies, was applied in the Wagerup and Pinjarra Acute and chronic hazard indices tend to be dominated by a few
refinery HRAs.12–14 The analyses considered the following indirect compounds or substances, with many other substances adding only
exposure pathways: very marginally to the cumulative hazard profile. For example, the
criteria pollutants nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particu-
• soil ingestion late matter (expressed as PM10 ) were found to comprise most of
• dermal absorption the AHI in each of the Wagerup, Pinjarra, Worsley, and Glad-
• vegetable ingestion stone alumina refinery HRAs.12,14,16,17 Up to 70 individual com-
• water ingestion pounds were included in the HRAs, including criteria pollutants, air


C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine S19

Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Donoghue and Coffey JOEM r Volume 56, Number 5S, May 2014

toxics, heavy metals, and persistent/bioaccumulative compounds.

TABLE 1. Typical Ranges of AHI, CHI, and ICR: Two
In nearly all the cases considered, the AHI at the maximum recep-
Example HRAs
tor was found to be comfortably less than unity.12,14,16,17 The few
exceptions were only marginally more than unity, an issue of no Distance From Plant AHI CHI ICR
concern, given the conservatism built into the methodology. More
than 95% of the AHI at the maximum receptor for the Pinjarra 3 km 0.3–1.1 0.02–0.04 0.1 × 10−6 –1.2 × 10−6
refinery HRA was accounted for by PM10 , nitrogen dioxide, mer- 5 km 0.2–0.7 0.01–0.02 0.05 × 10−6 –0.6 × 10−6
cury, sulfur dioxide, formaldehyde,∗ and carbon monoxide.14 The
CHI results were well less than unity at all receptors.12,14,16,17 AHI, acute hazard index; CHI, chronic hazard index; HRA, health risk assessment;
More than 95% of the CHI at the maximum receptor for the ICR, incremental carcinogenic risk.
Pinjarra refinery HRA was accounted for by nitrogen dioxide,
mercury, acetaldehyde,† formaldehyde,‡ cadmium, ammonia, and
manganese.14
In an assessment of the health risk from fugitive dust from bauxite
residue storages (Pinjarra refinery HRA, 2008), the contribution
of PM10 was found to dominate the AHI.15 Constituent metals
present in bauxite residue dust typically made up less than 2%
of the AHI. The CHI and ICR results were small. These findings
suggest that short-term PM10 exposures are the most relevant de-
terminant of health risk in relation to bauxite residue storages, just
as for many other sources of crustal dusts, such as unsealed roads,
farming operations, or engineering construction activities. They
also complement more recent findings from a study conducted af-
ter a bauxite residue impoundment failure in Hungary (Gelencser
et al18 ), notably: “Based on its size distribution and composition,
red mud dust appears to be less hazardous to human health than
urban particulate matter.”
ICR estimates from cumulative lifetime exposures at neighboring
residential properties, due to refinery and residue storage emis-
sions, were found in the referenced studies to generally achieve
the US EPA “de minimis” risk criterion of 1 × 10−6 , an indicator
of negligible risk (nearly all receptors were well below this level,
with a few cases just marginally above it).12,14,16,17 More than
95% of the ICR at the maximum receptor for the Pinjarra refinery
HRA was accounted for by formaldehyde,§ polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, chromium VI, acetaldehyde,¶ and arsenic.14
Typical ranges of hazard indices and ICR estimates across
two example HRAs—Wagerup and Pinjarra refineries—are shown FIGURE 1. Acute hazard index contours, Pinjarra refinery
in Table 1. A selected sample of contour plots for the AHI, CHI, health risk assessment, 2008.
and ICR are given in Figures 1 to 3 for the Pinjarra refinery HRA.
1, so the risk of chronic health effects is negligible. The ICR results
Uncertainties in modeled versus observed GLC predictions have
are also small and typically less than the US EPA “de minimis” level
been reported as within ±40% for Worsley refinery and −50% to
of 1 × 10−6 . An ongoing longitudinal study of employees at Alcoa’s
+100% (at the 95% confidence level) for Wagerup refinery—where
three alumina refineries in Western Australia has found no increase
there is topographical complexity.3,16
in cancer incidence attributable to working at the refineries.19 This
DISCUSSION observation is reassuring, given that occupational exposures to emis-
The results of HRAs at alumina refineries to date suggest that sions are typically higher than environmental exposures.
of the three types of health risks, acute, chronic and carcinogenic, One of the benefits of undertaking air dispersion modeling
only the risk of acute health effects is of any practical relevance. and HRAs is that the effects of changing mass emission rates, stack
The AHI can exceed 1 close to refineries, but is typically less than heights, emission control technologies, and buffer zone areas can
1 at neighboring residential locations. As explained earlier, there be assessed. This can help determine the potential impact of an
are layers of conservatism embedded in HRAs, so that marginally expansion proposal and the beneficial effect of any associated control
exceeding an AHI of 1 does not imply that acute health effects can measures. For example, Figures 1 to 3contain isopleths (contours) for
occur. Also, it is worth remembering that an AHI of 1 implies all both the existing Pinjarra refinery in 2008 and a proposed upgrade,
of the compounds in the HRA have high percentile (typically 99.9th which was subsequently completed.
percentile 1-hour average and 99.5th percentile 24-hour average) Undertaking HRAs at isolated facilities in rural settings, such
GLCs less than their respective health-based ambient air quality as at Pinjarra refinery and Wagerup refinery, is relatively straightfor-
guideline concentrations. The CHI results are substantially less than ward. It is of course much more complicated if a complex air shed
involving multiple industrial facilities is to be assessed, or if there
∗
are substantial diffuse background exposures to consider, such as
It should be kept in mind, however, that the contributions of formaldehyde and
acetaldehyde are likely overstated, as the dispersion modeling did not account for
from urban static and mobile sources. Under these circumstances air
atmospheric decay of these carbonyl compounds that are known to have relatively dispersion modeling would require emission data from several differ-
short atmospheric lifetimes. ent companies and need to incorporate assessments of background
†
See the first footnote. exposures by using ambient monitoring data.
‡
See the first footnote.
§
See the first footnote. Community concerns about air emissions from Wagerup re-
¶
See the first footnote. finery resulted in a comprehensive range of investigations, including

S20 
C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
JOEM r Volume 56, Number 5S, May 2014 HRA for Alumina Refineries

results by using isopleths on aerial photographs (or maps) such as in

Figures 1 to 3have proven useful in communicating with community
members and other stakeholders.

REFERENCES
1. Queensland Health. Clean and Healthy Air for Gladstone Project: Human
Health Risk Assessment Report, Summary of Findings. Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia: Queensland Health; 2010. Available at http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/
air/gladstone/pdf/final-health-risk-assessment-summary.pdf. Accessed June
12, 2013.
2. D’Abreton P. Air Quality Modelling Best Practice Guidance for the Australian
Alumina Industry – Report to the Australian Aluminium Council. Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia: PAE Holmes; 2009.
3. CSIRO Atmospheric Research. Meteorological and Dispersion Modelling
Using TAPM for Wagerup. Phase 3B: HRA (Health Risk Assessment) Con-
centration Modelling – Expanded Refinery Scenario. Aspendale, Victoria,
Australia: CSIRO Atmospheric Research; 2005. Available at http://www.
alcoa.com/australia/en/pdf/WAG AG Phase3B Final Report 5April2005.
pdf . Accessed June 12, 2013.
4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Revision to the Guideline
on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat
and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions; Final Rule.
Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2005.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw 05.pdf.
Accessed June 12, 2013.
5. Air Assessments. Air Dispersion Modelling of Fugitive Emissions Wa-
gerup Refinery. Perth, Western Australia, Australia: Air Assessments; 2005.
Available at http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/pdf/WAG_fugitive_modelling
FIGURE 2. Chronic hazard index contours, Pinjarra refinery _Oct2005.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2013.
health risk assessment, 2008. 6. Environ Australia. Air Quality Summary Report Wagerup 3 ERMP. Perth,
Western Australia, Australia: Environ Australia; 2005. Available at http://
www.alcoa.com/australia/en/pdf/WAG_AG_AQ_Summary_Report_Final
.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2013.
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Informa-
tion System (IRIS). Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency; 2012. Available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html. Accessed
June 12, 2013.
8. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Air Quality Guidelines
for Europe. 2nd ed. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization; 2000.
9. Ministry for the Environment. Contaminated Land Management Guidelines
No 2. Hierarchy and Application in New Zealand of Environmental Guideline
Values (Revised 2011). Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government
Ministry for the Environment; 2011. Available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/
publications/hazardous/contaminated-land-mgmt-guidelines-no2/. Accessed
November 16, 2013.
10. Alberta Health and Wellness. Guidance on Human Health Risk Assessment
for Environmental Impact Assessment in Alberta. Edmonton, AB: Govern-
mant of Alberta; 2011. Available at http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/
Health-Risk-Enviro-Impact-Guide-2011.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2013.
11. enHealth Council. Environmental Health Risk Assessment—Guidelines for
Assessing Human Health Risks From Environmental Hazards. Canberra,
Australian Capital Territory, Australia: enHealth Council; 2012. Available
at http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/804F8795BABF
B1C7CA256F1900045479/File/DoHA-EHRA-120910.pdf. Accessed June
12, 2013.
12. Environ and Benchmark Toxicology Services. Health Risk Assessment
of Atmospheric Emissions Expansion of Wagerup Refinery to 4.7 Mtpa.
Perth, Western Australia, Australia: Environ and Benchmark Toxicology
Services; 2005. Available at http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/pdf/Wagerup
Refinery Health Risk Assessment%20 %20Final.pdf. Accessed June 12,
2013.
13. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The Air Toxics Hot
FIGURE 3. Incremental carcinogenic risk contours, Pinjarra Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk As-
refinery health risk assessment, 2008. sessments. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency; 2003. Available
at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf. Accessed
intensive ambient air quality monitoring, air dispersion modeling, November 17, 2013.
HRA, and complaints analyses.20,21 These investigations found that 14. Environ Australia. Health Risk Screening Assessment of the Upgraded Pin-
the risks of health effects were negligible, but that refinery odor could jarra Refinery. Perth, Western Australia, Australia: Environ Australia; 2008.
Available at http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/pdf/hra upgraded pinjarra
be detected occasionally. Odor perception and environmental worry refinery.pdf . Accessed June 12, 2013.
have been found in other settings to be synergistic determinants of 15. Environ Australia. Screening Health Risk Assessment of Particulate Emis-
symptom reporting. These and other issues are discussed in an article sions From Alcoa’s Pinjarra Refinery Residue Disposal Area. Perth, Western
reporting the Wagerup refinery experience.20 Presentations of HRA Australia, Australia: Environ Australia; 2008. Available at http://www.alcoa.


C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine S21

Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Donoghue and Coffey JOEM r Volume 56, Number 5S, May 2014

com/australia/en/pdf/HRA Pinjarra Dust 21 August 08.pdf. Accessed June 18. Gelencser A, Kovats N, Turoczi B, et al. The red mud accident in Ajka
12, 2013. (Hungary): characterization and potential health effects of fugitive dust.
16. Toxikos Toxicology Consultants. Health Risk & Toxicological Assessment – Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45:1608–1615.
Worsley Expansion Emissions. Caulfield East, Victoria, Australia: Toxikos 19. Fritschi L, Hoving JL, Sim MR, et al. All cause mortality and incidence
Toxicology Consultants; 2005. Available at http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/ of cancer in workers in bauxite mines and alumina refineries. Int J Cancer.
2028 ERMP/ERMP WorsleyAlumina A10 V1.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2013. 2008;123:882–887.
17. Chow G. Air Dispersion Modelling and Health Risk Assessment Study for 20. Donoghue AM, Cullen MR. Air emissions from Wagerup alumina refinery
the Queensland Alumina Ltd Gladstone Refinery – Report to Queensland and community symptoms: an environmental case study. J Occup Environ
Alumina Ltd. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Pacific Air & Environment; Med. 2007;49:1027–1039.
2009. Available at http://www.qal.com.au/PDFs/QAL_Summary_Report 21. Coffey P, Donoghue M. The Wagerup refinery—beyond the controversy.
.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2013. Chem Eng. 2006;April:32–36.

S22 
C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.