JLE

Environnement, Risques & Santé

MENU

Health risk assessments for environmental impact studies of facilities subject to environmental protection statutes (ICPE). Methodological principles and feedback from experience Volume 1, issue 2, Mai - Juin 2002

Figures

See all figures

Author
Ineris Parc Technologique ALATA, BP 2, 60550 Verneuil-en-Halatte.

Changes in French regulatory procedures since the mid-1990s have begun to require consideration of the impact on human health of industrial installations, to be formulated as a Health Risk Assessment (HRA). The objectives of this article are to report (1)the methodological framework of the HRA in environmental impact studies and (2)the feedback we have acquired from our experience with its application before and after 2000. Various publications now offer methodological guidelines for HRAs. INERIS proposes an iterative process that flows logically from the application of the principle of proportionality, combined with the principles of scientific prudence, transparency and specificity. Before 2000, the absence of structured procedures was notable in environmental impact studies. This formal and substantive lacuna helped maintain the confusion between the concepts of hazard, exposure and risk. These studies also lacked transparency. Finally, all too often, we observed mismatches between (1)metrology and toxicology and (2)toxicology and exposure. By the beginning of 2001, although basic problems persist, HRAs follow, at least in their format, a nearly systematic procedure. The principal reasons for the progress that has been made are the national guidelines, the information and training campaigns, the working groups for different industrial sectors and substances as well as the emergence of centers of excellence. These efforts deserve to be continued;in particular transversal collaborations between the various actors should be formalized on a long-term basis. To learn lessons from past mistakes involves understanding the need for risk analysts to make their points clearly to the public. An interface must still be built between risk assessors and risk managers. These constraints require a predictive and informative approach, accompanied by training, dialogue, motivation, sensitization and accountability.