Security cameras monitoring Tata Steel’s emissions may remain in place. This was determined by the court in steelmaker Tata Steel’s preliminary legal action against the North Sea Canal Zone Environmental Services. The company claimed that the cameras violated the privacy of its employees.
Perimeter service installed the cameras in February. With pictures, the regulator no longer wants to rely on information from Tata Steel itself. In a two-month period, this has already led to nine incidents. In four cases, the plumes of smoke appear so worrying that the regulator is launching further investigations. When asked about the environmental service, he said that three of these incidents were not reported by Tata Steel.
The lens is aimed at Kooksgasfabriek 2 at the Tata Steel plant in Velsen-Noord. Dark clouds descend from the factory regularly. Black, yellow, or brown clouds indicate contamination that the service wishes to investigate. The agency is even considering revoking the factory’s license.
The environmental service installed the cameras at a distance of 450 meters so that the factory workers were not included in the footage. In addition, the bottom edge of the image is protected by a black block so that mainly the sky is visible.
The picture looks like this:
Tata Çelik did not find this sufficient and stated that the employees could still be recognizable in the picture. The judge has now ruled that the cameras are not aimed at people and that the chances of employee privacy being violated are “very small”.
The judge further notes that “Tata Steel’s reasoning shows little realism and little confidence in the intentions of the Environmental Service.” According to the judge, it is clear that the environmental service is concerned with images of emissions, not workers.
“We are delighted to have taken another step towards protecting residents and their health,” said Mario Bakker, Head of Environmental Services Audit and Enforcement.
Tata: Disappointed with the decision
Tata Steel responded in writing: “We are disappointed with the decision. Of course, we are not against surveillance, including cameras. However, our main concern was and remains to ensure the privacy of our employees. That was our main argument against camera surveillance, and we still support it.”
The company is seeking further investigation on how to prevent its employees from being viewed, for example by asking for permission from relevant people. They also recommend that only images “related to a possible emission event” be stored.
Nine events on screen
Critical reports on Tata’s emissions are now piling up. Environmental service also adds to the pressure. In September, the steelmaker was fined €100,000 for polluting Kooks factories. This was the third penalty for this violation.
The judge also considers Tata Çelik’s criticisms. “There is a widespread call from the community to take stronger action against harmful emissions of substances of very high concern in the Tata Steel environment,” he says. Therefore, it is understandable that the environmental service no longer wants to rely on Tata Steel’s own images.
Previously, Environmental Services relied on Tata Steel’s own reports to address these violations. The camera had to put an end to it. The environmental service can now monitor the factory itself 24 hours a day, without having to run checks on the embankment across from the factory.
This is the first time the perimeter service has used cameras for surveillance. It is currently still a pilot project, although its duration was recently extended. It is not yet clear whether this decision paves the way for more cameras to be turned into factories.
Source: NOS
Roy Brown is a renowned economist and author at The Nation View. He has a deep understanding of the global economy and its intricacies. He writes about a wide range of economic topics, including monetary policy, fiscal policy, international trade, and labor markets.
