Suchergebnisse

National audience ; 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 the methodological framework of the HRA in environmental impact studies and 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 metrology and toxicology and 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. ; Les processus réglementaires français évoluent depuis le milieu des années 1990 en regard de la prise ...

National audience ; 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 the methodological framework of the HRA in environmental impact studies and 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 metrology and toxicology and 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. ; Les processus réglementaires français évoluent depuis le milieu des années 1990 en regard de la prise ...

National audience ; 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 the methodological framework of the HRA in environmental impact studies and 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 metrology and toxicology and 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. ; Les processus réglementaires français évoluent depuis le milieu des années 1990 en regard de la prise ...

Analyzing the relationship between environment and health has become a major preoccupation for public health in France as evidenced by the national action plans for health and environment. The aim of the study is to develop a spatial stochastic multimedia exposure model for detecting vulnerable populations and analyzing exposure determinants at a fine resolution and regional scale. A multimedia exposure model was developed by INERIS to assess the transfer of substances from the environment to human. The RESPIR project adds a spatial dimension by linking a GIS (Geographic Information System) to the model. Tools are developed using modeling, spatial analysis and geostatistic methods to build interesting variables on a 1 km2 regular grid. As application, INERIS performed a risk assessment of exposure to metals (cadmium, lead and nickel). The modeling was performed on a region of France (Nord-Pas-de-Calais). The considered exposure pathways include inhalation and ingestion. The two largest risk values correspond to an ancient industrial site (Metaleurop) and to the Lille city agglomeration. In these areas, cadmium, vegetation ingestion and soil contamination are the principal determinants of the computed risk. ; Le constat des inégalités environnementales et la reprise de la thématique dans les politiques publiques (axe prioritaire du second Plan national santé environnement) nécessitent la construction d'outils de diagnostic pour orienter les mesures de gestion permettant de contrôler ou de réduire les expositions en vue de garantir un niveau de « dégradation » et de risque non préoccupant. L'objectif de cette étude est de construire, dans un système d'information géographique (SIG), des bases de données environnementales spatialisées par milieu au niveau régional. Ces bases de données sont utilisées pour estimer l'exposition des populations à différents polluants. L'étude vise à identifier des zones de surexposition potentielle des populations aux polluants chimiques et leurs déterminants (types de polluant, voies ...

Analyzing the relationship between environment and health has become a major preoccupation for public health in France as evidenced by the national action plans for health and environment. The aim of the study is to develop a spatial stochastic multimedia exposure model for detecting vulnerable populations and analyzing exposure determinants at a fine resolution and regional scale. A multimedia exposure model was developed by INERIS to assess the transfer of substances from the environment to human. The RESPIR project adds a spatial dimension by linking a GIS (Geographic Information System) to the model. Tools are developed using modeling, spatial analysis and geostatistic methods to build interesting variables on a 1 km2 regular grid. As application, INERIS performed a risk assessment of exposure to metals (cadmium, lead and nickel). The modeling was performed on a region of France (Nord-Pas-de-Calais). The considered exposure pathways include inhalation and ingestion. The two largest risk values correspond to an ancient industrial site (Metaleurop) and to the Lille city agglomeration. In these areas, cadmium, vegetation ingestion and soil contamination are the principal determinants of the computed risk. ; Le constat des inégalités environnementales et la reprise de la thématique dans les politiques publiques (axe prioritaire du second Plan national santé environnement) nécessitent la construction d'outils de diagnostic pour orienter les mesures de gestion permettant de contrôler ou de réduire les expositions en vue de garantir un niveau de « dégradation » et de risque non préoccupant. L'objectif de cette étude est de construire, dans un système d'information géographique (SIG), des bases de données environnementales spatialisées par milieu au niveau régional. Ces bases de données sont utilisées pour estimer l'exposition des populations à différents polluants. L'étude vise à identifier des zones de surexposition potentielle des populations aux polluants chimiques et leurs déterminants (types de polluant, voies d'exposition, classes de population à risque) par l'analyse des variations de l'indicateur environnemental. Un modèle multimédia d'exposition est utilisé pour le calcul des doses d'exposition de populations cibles liées à l'ingestion de produits d'alimentation, d'eau de consommation, et à l'inhalation de contaminants atmosphériques. Utilisant les équations de transfert et l'architecture du modèle développé par l'INERIS (Modul'ERS), la composante spatiale a été apportée à l'outil de calcul par son couplage avec un SIG. Pour cette étude, le modèle évalue la dose journalière d'exposition pour des mailles de 1 km2 sur l'ensemble de la région Nord - Pas-de-Calais.

International audience ; Identifying and ranking substances of concern is a complex task, because the meaning of 'substance of concern' differs according to the specific regulation, public policy, ranking exercise, and individual opinion. In terms of public actions, the choice of priority substances is generally supported by rankings of substances constructed by experts. In this article we suggest a process that adds to this ranking others based on views identified among others involved in the decision process, including but not limited to groups of decision makers, stakeholders, and members of civil society. Participatory multicriteria methods may be used for this purpose. These methods structure the participatory approach and make explicit the underlying logic of each ranking generated; they can be adapted to the available data. These methods have been implemented with stakeholders in other ranking exercises, dealing with various environmental issues, but not yet, to our knowledge, for ranking substances of concern. Using this ranking process for choosing priority substances in light of a specific objective, decision-makers can illuminate and nourish their analyses with several different rankings, characterized by their underlying logic, rather than by a single ranking that presupposes a consensus that does not necessarily exist. These different rankings will enable them, to some extent, to understand and take into account the diversity of the viewpoints that can be selected to meet the objective. This process can be adapted to any type of context and objective. An application conducted in 2012, to support the choice of the priority substances of the future French Environmental Health National Action Plan (PNSE3), illustrates each step of the process. ; Identifier et hiérarchiser des substances préoccupantes est une tâche complexe, car la notion même de substance préoccupante revêt un sens différent selon les réglementations, les politiques publiques, les exercices de hiérarchisation existants ou les opinions ...

Identifying and ranking substances of concern is a complex task: the notion of substance of concern has a different meaning depending on regulations, public policies, existing ranking exercises or individual opinions. The choice of priority substances is generally supported by orders of substances constructed on an expert opinion. The process suggests providing, in addition, orders of substances elaborated on the basis of views identified among other people involved in the decision process: groups of decision makers, stakeholders, people from civil society, etc. This process advises using participatory multi-criteria methods. These methods give structure to the participatory approach, they make explicit the underlying logic of each generated order and they can be adapted to the available data. The process can adapt to any type of context and ranking objective. An application conducted in 2012, to support the choice of the priority substances of the future French Environmental Health National Action Plan (PNSE3), illustrate the process. ; Une des priorités du deuxième Plan National Santé-Environnement (PNSE2) est de définir une méthode d'identification et de hiérarchisation des substances toxiques les plus préoccupantes. La notion même de substance préoccupante revêt un sens différent selon les réglementations, les politiques publiques, les exercices de hiérarchisation existants ou les opinions individuelles. Différents critères peuvent être mis en avant, par exemple : le danger, le caractère Persistant Bioaccumulable et Toxique (PBT), la protection de populations sensibles et le risque individuel inacceptable. En termes d'actions publiques, le choix de substances prioritaires s'appuie généralement sur des ordres de substances construits sur la base d'un avis d'experts. Le processus décrit ici propose de fournir, en complément, des ordres de substances basés sur des points de vue identifiés parmi d'autres acteurs de la décision : groupe de décideurs, représentants d'intérêts divers, personnes issues de la ...

International audience ; Identifying and ranking substances of concern is a complex task, because the meaning of 'substance of concern' differs according to the specific regulation, public policy, ranking exercise, and individual opinion. In terms of public actions, the choice of priority substances is generally supported by rankings of substances constructed by experts. In this article we suggest a process that adds to this ranking others based on views identified among others involved in the decision process, including but not limited to groups of decision makers, stakeholders, and members of civil society. Participatory multicriteria methods may be used for this purpose. These methods structure the participatory approach and make explicit the underlying logic of each ranking generated; they can be adapted to the available data. These methods have been implemented with stakeholders in other ranking exercises, dealing with various environmental issues, but not yet, to our knowledge, for ranking substances of concern. Using this ranking process for choosing priority substances in light of a specific objective, decision-makers can illuminate and nourish their analyses with several different rankings, characterized by their underlying logic, rather than by a single ranking that presupposes a consensus that does not necessarily exist. These different rankings will enable them, to some extent, to understand and take into account the diversity of the viewpoints that can be selected to meet the objective. This process can be adapted to any type of context and objective. An application conducted in 2012, to support the choice of the priority substances of the future French Environmental Health National Action Plan (PNSE3), illustrates each step of the process. ; Identifier et hiérarchiser des substances préoccupantes est une tâche complexe, car la notion même de substance préoccupante revêt un sens différent selon les réglementations, les politiques publiques, les exercices de hiérarchisation existants ou les opinions ...

International audience ; Identifying and ranking substances of concern is a complex task, because the meaning of 'substance of concern' differs according to the specific regulation, public policy, ranking exercise, and individual opinion. In terms of public actions, the choice of priority substances is generally supported by rankings of substances constructed by experts. In this article we suggest a process that adds to this ranking others based on views identified among others involved in the decision process, including but not limited to groups of decision makers, stakeholders, and members of civil society. Participatory multicriteria methods may be used for this purpose. These methods structure the participatory approach and make explicit the underlying logic of each ranking generated; they can be adapted to the available data. These methods have been implemented with stakeholders in other ranking exercises, dealing with various environmental issues, but not yet, to our knowledge, for ranking substances of concern. Using this ranking process for choosing priority substances in light of a specific objective, decision-makers can illuminate and nourish their analyses with several different rankings, characterized by their underlying logic, rather than by a single ranking that presupposes a consensus that does not necessarily exist. These different rankings will enable them, to some extent, to understand and take into account the diversity of the viewpoints that can be selected to meet the objective. This process can be adapted to any type of context and objective. An application conducted in 2012, to support the choice of the priority substances of the future French Environmental Health National Action Plan (PNSE3), illustrates each step of the process. ; Identifier et hiérarchiser des substances préoccupantes est une tâche complexe, car la notion même de substance préoccupante revêt un sens différent selon les réglementations, les politiques publiques, les exercices de hiérarchisation existants ou les opinions ...

Identifying and ranking substances of concern is a complex task: the notion of substance of concern has a different meaning depending on regulations, public policies, existing ranking exercises or individual opinions. The choice of priority substances is generally supported by orders of substances constructed on an expert opinion. The process suggests providing, in addition, orders of substances elaborated on the basis of views identified among other people involved in the decision process: groups of decision makers, stakeholders, people from civil society, etc. This process advises using participatory multi-criteria methods. These methods give structure to the participatory approach, they make explicit the underlying logic of each generated order and they can be adapted to the available data. The process can adapt to any type of context and ranking objective. An application conducted in 2012, to support the choice of the priority substances of the future French Environmental Health National Action Plan (PNSE3), illustrate the process. ; Une des priorités du deuxième Plan National Santé-Environnement (PNSE2) est de définir une méthode d'identification et de hiérarchisation des substances toxiques les plus préoccupantes. La notion même de substance préoccupante revêt un sens différent selon les réglementations, les politiques publiques, les exercices de hiérarchisation existants ou les opinions individuelles. Différents critères peuvent être mis en avant, par exemple : le danger, le caractère Persistant Bioaccumulable et Toxique (PBT), la protection de populations sensibles et le risque individuel inacceptable. En termes d'actions publiques, le choix de substances prioritaires s'appuie généralement sur des ordres de substances construits sur la base d'un avis d'experts. Le processus décrit ici propose de fournir, en complément, des ordres de substances basés sur des points de vue identifiés parmi d'autres acteurs de la décision : groupe de décideurs, représentants d'intérêts divers, personnes issues de la société, etc.

International audience ; Identifying and ranking substances of concern is a complex task, because the meaning of 'substance of concern' differs according to the specific regulation, public policy, ranking exercise, and individual opinion. In terms of public actions, the choice of priority substances is generally supported by rankings of substances constructed by experts. In this article we suggest a process that adds to this ranking others based on views identified among others involved in the decision process, including but not limited to groups of decision makers, stakeholders, and members of civil society. Participatory multicriteria methods may be used for this purpose. These methods structure the participatory approach and make explicit the underlying logic of each ranking generated; they can be adapted to the available data. These methods have been implemented with stakeholders in other ranking exercises, dealing with various environmental issues, but not yet, to our knowledge, for ranking substances of concern. Using this ranking process for choosing priority substances in light of a specific objective, decision-makers can illuminate and nourish their analyses with several different rankings, characterized by their underlying logic, rather than by a single ranking that presupposes a consensus that does not necessarily exist. These different rankings will enable them, to some extent, to understand and take into account the diversity of the viewpoints that can be selected to meet the objective. This process can be adapted to any type of context and objective. An application conducted in 2012, to support the choice of the priority substances of the future French Environmental Health National Action Plan (PNSE3), illustrates each step of the process. ; Identifier et hiérarchiser des substances préoccupantes est une tâche complexe, car la notion même de substance préoccupante revêt un sens différent selon les réglementations, les politiques publiques, les exercices de hiérarchisation existants ou les opinions ...