Leading a chemical plant's environmental transformation: an interview with Kim Kwang-ho

As environmental regulations grow stricter, the manufacturing sector is responding with more responsible sustainable initiatives. In this interview, Kim Kwang-ho at Kumho Polychem's Safety and Environment team introduced the company's initiatives to improve energy efficiency and reduce environmental pollution beyond legal minimums, as well as structural challenges in approaching full carbon neutrality.

First, could you tell us about the work you’re currently doing?

I’m in charge of environmental permits and the management of environmental facilities at a chemical plant that produces rubber. Specifically, my duties involve checking the operational status of the facility’s environmental systems and continuously monitoring compliance with environmental regulations. Additionally, whenever there are changes to the facility’s environmental systems, I coordinate with agencies such as the Korea Environment Corporation to ensure that all relevant regulations are followed, thereby managing the facility as a whole.

Given the risk of significant greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions at the plant, are there any specific areas you prioritize managing to reduce these?

Reducing greenhouse gases and energy consumption is crucial for both ESG management and our company’s cost-saving efforts. One representative piece of equipment we’ve introduced is an MVR system. To briefly explain how it works: steam is used within the factory to generate heat, but instead of discarding it immediately after use, we recover it and reuse it. We were the first to introduce this system within the Yeosu Industrial Complex, and it is currently operating successfully. Aside from that, when it comes to water usage, we treat any water that can be reused and reintroduce it into the factory, thereby improving energy efficiency.

Do you feel that environmental regulations have increased or become stricter compared to the past?

Regarding environmental regulations, they have been steadily becoming stricter every year since 2016. Since then, new laws have been enacted or existing ones revised, and a significant number of additional regulations have been imposed on business sites. Looking at the key compliance requirements, businesses must periodically hire specialized external firms to measure environmental pollutants—such as air pollutants and water pollutants—and report the results to the Ministry of Environment. Furthermore, the permissible emission concentration standards for these pollutants are being steadily tightened. 

As a result, it has become virtually inevitable for facilities of a certain size or larger to install additional pollution control facilities in order to comply with these standards. Installing these prevention facilities is quite costly; depending on the size, a single unit can cost hundreds of billions of won. This represents a significant financial burden for the facilities, and since there is a need to monitor and supervise whether these prevention facilities are operating properly, additional staff have been hired for this purpose. Of course, I am one of the employees hired to meet this need.

Beyond environmental pollutants, environmental regulations regarding chemicals have also been significantly strengthened. As concerns about chemical accidents have risen, if a hazardous chemical is used, we must obtain a permit from the Ministry of Environment. However, once we obtain that permit, we are required to subscribe to environmental liability insurance, and we must also undergo regular facility inspections by a specialized agency. In addition to these, there are many other compliance requirements, but I think I can summarize it to this extent.

You’ve mentioned a wide range of implementation measures. Do you believe that through these efforts, greenhouse gas emissions are actually being reduced, wastewater is being recycled more effectively, and environmental damage and burdens are being progressively minimized?

First of all, the business site naturally shares that view, and we believe this is the case both in quantitative terms and in terms of our reputation in the surrounding community. Take the Yeosu Industrial Complex, for example. About 20 to 30 years ago, the odors were very strong and the air quality was quite poor. However, according to analysis by the Korea Meteorological Administration, the current data shows that conditions have improved to the point where they are comparable to those in other urban areas without industrial zones. Complaints from nearby residents have also decreased significantly compared to the past.

As you mentioned, relations with the local community are likely important as well. Since factory operations inevitably affect air quality, have there been any instances where you had to communicate or respond to local residents regarding this issue?

Since I joined the company, we haven’t held any separate, ad-hoc meetings specifically due to resident complaints. However, we are legally required to periodically hold public hearings or provide notifications to residents. Therefore, we conduct the mandatory annual resident notifications accordingly. As for the method, we post scenarios of potential environmental pollution incidents that could occur at our facility on a website accessible online. We summarize how to evacuate in the event of such an incident and provide that information. Additionally, we convene resident representatives once a year to explain these matters directly on-site.

You mentioned that investments in environmental facilities and safety systems entail significant costs. Despite this, do you proceed with such investments because the need for them is largely driven by regulations?

Yes, that is part of it. Additionally, since it is a necessary component of ESG management, we are proactively implementing these measures beyond what is legally required. Of course, the legally required measures represent the greatest financial burden. However, even beyond that, there is significant interest—particularly when exporting to Europe—in ensuring that the products we manufacture are produced in a way that does not cause environmental issues or violate certain conditions. Consequently, our sales teams, especially those focused on Europe, are consistently discussing these matters. We are going beyond legal requirements and proactively establishing systems and programs that we believe are necessary to prevent environmental pollution, even if they are not mandated by law. 

From your perspective working on the front lines, I’m curious whether goals like carbon neutrality and RE100—which many other companies are declaring—still feel like distant targets, or if you’re starting to feel these changes more tangibly as time goes on.

Regarding carbon, we operate under a cap-and-trade system where we trade carbon allowances among our facilities. If a facility needs to emit more carbon, it must purchase emission credits from another facility. We are reducing emissions in accordance with this law, but I believe there are, of course, limitations to achieving complete carbon neutrality or zero carbon emissions. This is because, no matter how much attention we pay to carbon emissions, carbon is inevitably emitted during the production of the electricity and steam we use. So, while I believe we are moving toward zero to some extent, I think it will take more time to achieve full carbon neutrality. However, I believe we are still steadily moving in that direction.

Finally, looking ahead to the near future, you mentioned that environmental regulations are becoming stricter every year. Do you think this trend will continue, and if so, how do you plan to strengthen your implementation strategies to meet these increasingly stringent requirements?

Regarding environmental regulations, it appears they will continue to tighten in the future. This is because there are still pending bills and regulations that have not yet been formally proposed but are scheduled to be introduced. Therefore, I believe it is crucial for businesses to maintain open communication with the Ministry of Environment regarding these matters. That’s why the Ministry of Environment is currently holding regular briefings and public hearings, inviting representatives from business sites to gather their input. After all, it’s true that environmental standards must continue to improve.

But at the same time, if the burden on the business exceeds a certain level, it can become a significant burden, so it’s important to maintain frequent communication with the Ministry of Environment regarding these matters. Also, regarding proactive measures within the facility, I believe we have already paid close attention to areas where we can take the initiative. Moving forward, I hope to see an increase in new initiatives that the facility can undertake—specifically, more environmental projects and initiatives.