Tata Steel underestimated the emissions of metals and carcinogens from the factory site. This became clear after an ‘expert meeting’ by the ministry, inspectorate, RIVM, the province and Tata. As a result, RIVM found in its January health report many more harmful substances in the IJmond than expected.
In January, RIVM established in a source study that there are much higher concentrations of substances of very high concern (ZZS) descend into the IJmond than would be expected based on emissions data from Tata Steel’s ‘Electronic Environmental Report’.
The harmful metals lead and vanadium were up to 30 times more common than expected, and in some PAHs (carcinogens, ed.) the concentration rose by a factor of 1,000 above expectations.
Despite the mistake, Tata Steel is “happy with the clarity that has emerged,” said Marco Workel, director of Health, Safety, Security and Environment.
Expert meeting
How could that measurement error happen? After a so-called expert meeting between the ministry, inspectorate, RIVM, Tata and the province, it is now clear: the air network measurements of the RIVM were in any case not the fault. In other words: the closer to Tata Steel, the more substances that increase the risk of, for example, cancer and brain damage.
Another measurement from 2019 by Tata Steel itself, a so-called substances of very high concern (ZZS) measurement, also turned out to be ‘just’ correct. But such a zzs measurement was only carried out once, all for that year, while electronic annual environmental reports existed from 2012 to 2020.
This seemed to be a reliable system as a starting point for the RIVM study, but it has now become apparent that the annual report has other weaknesses: all kinds of characteristics of the emissions, such as the height of the source, diameter of the chimney and the ‘exit speed’, had to be included in the measurement system. and temperature of the flue gas’ cannot be entered accurately enough, explains Workel. And that led to an underestimation of Tata Steel’s emissions.
Text continues below the interview.
It seems striking that Tata Steel is happy about this, because it is not the case that Tata Steel has emitted less than expected. “We have now managed to harmonize the data, and we think with all the experts that we have found the causes of the difference,” says Workel. “And that means we can go ahead with our plans, and know we’re doing the right things.”
Questionable finding?
Recently, Tata Steel itself reported that the PAH’s emissions from the entire Tata Steel site this year are halved compared to three years ago† That was the finding of an independent agency hired by Tata.
Isn’t that finding therefore doubtful? Not according to Workel. Because the baseline, the initial measurement from 2019 was not based on the erroneous measurements of the electronic annual environmental reports, but on a different measurement, which turned out to be correct.
Tata Steel must now improve those electronic annual environmental reports based on the knowledge gained about the much more precise zzs measurement, the province reports in a response.