Home » today » News » State singled out by Senate after Lubrizol fire

State singled out by Senate after Lubrizol fire

Caen (AFP) – “Problematic” health monitoring, insufficient means, the Senate committee of inquiry into the spectacular Lubrizol fire denounces “unacceptable blind spots” in the prevention of industrial risks in France and pinpoints the government and particularly the former Minister of Health Agnès Buzyn, in a report published Thursday.

“Like health monitoring proper, the identification of the health risk as practiced by the Ministry of Health was both late and incomplete”, write the rapporteurs Christine Bonfanti-Dossat (LR) and Nicole Bonnefoy (PS) in their conclusions on this “major industrial accident”, with no “apparent” victim, which was the subject of “200,000 tweets in 24 hours”.

The fire, which occurred on September 26 on the Seveso high threshold site, had caused a huge cloud of black smoke, 22 km long with fallout of soot into Hauts-de-France. Nearly 9,505 tonnes of chemicals had burned in this automobile lubricants plant and on the neighboring Normandy Logistics site.

For the commission chaired by the centrist Hervé Maurey, the methodology adopted by the Ministry of Health for health monitoring is “problematic”.

“As summarized by Ms. Émilie Counil, researcher at the National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED) + Public Health France, the ARS and Ms. Buzyn defend the view that you should know what you are looking for to look for +, ”write the senators.

Indeed, “the public decision to launch a health monitoring remains suspended without the undeniable discovery of a proven risk,” say the senators, despite “the uncertainty about the toxicity of the fumes emitted during the fire”.

However, “it appears (…) that it is impossible to give a definitive opinion on the health impact of the Lubrizol fire, in view of the only data collected in the context of environmental monitoring, the latter being totally or partially unusable “.

Even “in the short term, despite a generally reassuring assessment, there remains a risk of exposure to benzene for the populations located on the site of the Lubrizol factory on the day and the day after the fire, as well as significant uncertainty concerning dioxins and furans “.

The report points to a “longer-term problem: the debates around asbestos fibers in the plume”.

The senators also denounce the decision of the Minister of Agriculture “taken urgently on October 11” to lift the ban on the sale of milk produced in more than 200 municipalities. This decision taken “three days before the publication of the first ANSES opinion (health authorities note), seems premature: it could not take into account the strong reservations expressed (…) confirmed in the subsequent opinions”, according to the report .

The government then “ignored the incompleteness of the analysis of air samples”.

The Minister for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition has not been outdone. Its stated goal following the disaster “to increase controls by 50% by 2022 with constant staff” is “unrealistic,” the report said.

Because “for fifteen years (…) the number of inspections” of classified industrial sites “has practically been halved”.

For the senators, it is necessary to “reinforce the human and financial resources devoted” to prevention.

The government is not the only one pinned in this report. “The industrial risk prevention policy deployed for 40 years in France reveals significant and unacceptable blind spots”, write the rapporteurs.

“The budgetary appropriations allocated by the State for the prevention of technological risks have been decreasing for several years,” added the senators.

Elected officials of the High Assembly also point out “the reduced number of sanctions imposed, their weakness and the higher clearance rate for environmental offenses than for the average”. This is “seen by some observers as a sign of a form of government indulgence vis-à-vis industries,” they continue.

In addition, “there is an urgent need to review the state’s crisis communication doctrine. Wanting to reassure at all costs makes us lose sight of the main objective: to inform as clearly as possible and in real time. “

© AFP

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.