The Omgevingsdienst Noordzeekanaalgebied may continue camera surveillance of Tata Steel's gas and cooking plant in IJmuiden. This follows from the ruling of the preliminary relief judge of the North Holland District Court. Tata Steel had initiated summary proceedings to stop the camera surveillance. The preliminary relief judge rejected the claims.
Since the end of February 2023, the Environmental Department has been exercising camera surveillance of Tata Steel's gas and cooks plant. The plant makes kooks by heating coal. The kooks is needed to convert iron oxide to iron. If kooks do not get hot enough during that process, some of it may not be fully cooked through: so-called unready kooks. Extinguishing those kooks can release very harmful substances. The release of black smoke from the extinguishing towers is an indication that this is the case. In 2022, the RIVM recommended that information on emissions of substances at Tata Steel be improved, in part because data on emissions did not appear to be supplied in full. In April 2023, the Dutch Safety Board concluded that citizens in the Netherlands are insufficiently protected against the health risks of industrial emissions. One of the companies investigated was Tata Steel.
The camera installed by the Environmental Department in February is located outside Tata Steel's premises, about 450 meters away from the production process the department wants to monitor. The camera films the plant's surroundings continuously: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The images showing black smoke when viewed back are stored.
Tata Steel considers this camera surveillance unlawful and demands its immediate termination. According to Tata Steel, it constitutes an invasion of the privacy of its employees. It believes there must be a special legal basis for this far-reaching form of surveillance, which does not exist under current law.
The interim relief judge noted that the essence of this case is that there is a widespread call in society for stronger action against the health-damaging emissions of substances of very high concern into the environment. Given the content of the Dutch Safety Board's report, it is understandable and right that the Environmental Protection Agency should strive to reduce emissions of these substances to zero. It is also understandable and right that the Environment Service wants to take the lead in its supervision and no longer depend on images that Tata Steel itself records and manages. After all, a supervisor does not want to depend on the violator to collect data on compliance.
The preliminary injunction judge ruled that the Environmental Department's camera deployment was permissible. The camera footage is selected and stored once every three weeks. The rest of the recorded material is destroyed. Based on photos and footage shown by the Environment Service, the judge said it is highly implausible that officers can be recognized when the footage is processed. A special law is not necessary because the surveillance is not aimed at recognizably portraying individuals to gather information about them. Nor is there much, if any, of that.
The argument of Tata Steel suggests that all kinds of terrible things could happen to the personal data that has been collected, that the employees of the Environmental Department are just messing around and that the data could be out in the open in no time. The preliminary relief judge ruled that there was no reason for this fear.
Want to learn more about camera surveillance? Take a look at the course Camera Surveillance & Privacy
