Hello, I'm an administrative agent with an office in Songdo, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon. Let me introduce you to an episode I encountered while working, for my neighbors. 🙂
Around this time, inquiries of the same kind increase.
Early in the ninth month, when the intense heat of summer begins to subside, people open their windows. It’s a season to turn off the air conditioner and let in the breeze. And when the windows open, the smell that had been lingering behind them all summer flows out into the neighborhood.
That smell becomes a complaint, the complaint becomes an inspection, and the time it takes for that to become a notice of intent is surprisingly short. This story also began that way.
The Phone Call of the Season When Windows Open
A phone call came in on Tuesday morning. The voice was hesitant, and the first sentence was: "I received something from the district office, but I don't understand what it says."
After asking a few questions over the phone, I requested that they send me a photo of the notice. The photos arrived via email that evening, and I was about halfway through reviewing them before the meeting.
The notice was a notice of intent for a disposition. It stated that they had installed and operated an air pollutant emission facility without reporting it, and it included the deadline for submitting a response. There were two weeks left until that deadline.
We scheduled an appointment and he came in on Thursday afternoon of that week. He was a man in his early forties, running a custom furniture workshop in a small factory building in Seo-gu, Incheon. He had two employees. He made custom tables and cabinets, and he had a backlog of orders for three months.
The lease was for five years, and it was in the second year. He hadn't yet recovered the money he invested in equipment when he opened the workshop. One of those pieces of equipment was at the center of this issue: a spray booth.
Why One Spray Booth Becomes an Emission Facility
Custom furniture is finished with a coating. Oil is applied, or paint is sprayed. This workshop used a spray method, and he had installed a small spray booth for that purpose. The paint was sprayed inside the booth, and air was extracted outside with an exhaust fan.
The "Atmospheric Environment Conservation Act" stipulates that anyone installing facilities that emit air pollutants must obtain permission or file a report before installation. Whether a facility is subject to permission, reporting, or neither depends on the type and scale of the facility, the materials used, and the installation location.
Spray booths are facilities for which this determination is typically required. This is because the solvents in the paint fly into the air when painting. And here's the first pitfall in practice.
Most small business owners think, "We're too small to be subject to this." Sometimes that judgment is correct, and sometimes it's wrong. The problem is who made that judgment and on what basis. He judged based on a few internet posts when he opened the workshop. Those posts were about exemptions from installing pollution prevention facilities, which is different from the installation reporting itself.
Whether you need to report and whether you need to install pollution prevention facilities after reporting are separate questions. Even if the answer to the second question is "an exemption may be possible," the answer to the first question is still "you must report."
This distinction was half of this case.
Let me clarify one more thing. Permission and reporting are also different. Permission is when the administrative agency reviews the requirements and grants permission, and reporting is when you notify them of the requirements. In either case, the point is that it must be done "before installation." If you have already installed and are using it, then from that point on, you will go through a post-correction procedure.
For small spray booths like the one in his workshop, the assessment usually begins with reporting. However, the word "usually" is not evidence. The numerical values of the facility's scale and the materials used must be confirmed to determine which category it falls into.
And those numbers were the ones that, had he checked them once when he first brought in the booth, would have prevented any problems for three years.
He Had Already Explained It Twice to Himself
He had already taken two actions before coming to the office.
The first time was an inspection day. When two officials from the environmental department of the district office came to the workshop, he explained, "We're small, so it shouldn't apply." The official checked the booth specifications, exhaust fan, and cans of paint in use, and took pictures. They said they would contact him after review.
The second time was after receiving the notification. He called the district office and repeated the same explanation. The official instructed him to submit opinions and materials within the deadline for review. It was an accurate instruction.
After that call, he spent several days unsure of what materials to submit, and then, through an introduction from a friend, he contacted our office.
Field inspectors record results on the report form according to the manual. Discretionary judgment comes in the next stage. It’s not wrong to follow the manual. The important thing is what the business owner brings to the next stage.
And saying "it doesn't apply" isn't effective unless it's backed up with supporting documentation.
Let me briefly explain the prior notification system. The Administrative Procedure Act stipulates that administrative agencies must notify the parties involved and give them an opportunity to express their opinions before making a disadvantageous decision. That’s what the notification he received was. It wasn't a finalized decision; it was an opportunity to speak if he had something to say before the decision was made.
Many people read this notification as a decision notice. They become frightened and spend days, or conversely, they do nothing, thinking, "It's already decided." Both are regrettable choices. The opinion submission period is the business owner’s almost sole channel to document facts and circumstances before the decision is made.
He initially read this notification as a decision notice. The first ten minutes of the initial consultation were spent explaining that this wasn't over yet.
Three Things to Share Within Twelve Days
What I did during the initial consultation was divide the remaining twelve days into three sections.
The first section is fact verification. We first need to confirm whether this paint booth is actually subject to reporting. If it's not subject to reporting, the direction of the opinion letter will be "not applicable," and if it is subject to reporting, the direction will be "subsequent reporting and measures." These are completely different documents.
The second section is location verification. Even if reporting is required, we need to first determine whether this facility can be located in that building and on that site. Restrictions may apply depending on the building’s use and zoning. Skipping this and starting to write the reporting form can lead to a situation where the application is not approved.
The third section is immediate action. Regardless of which direction we take, there must be a written record of "what has been done so far" by the opinion submission deadline. Plans made verbally are weak in writing.
The order of these three sections was important. Taking action before fact verification can lead to unnecessary costs, and starting the reporting process without location verification makes it difficult to reverse.
In administration, order is half the battle. 🗂️
He had one question. Whether he could immediately file an administrative complaint. He had seen articles online saying to file an administrative complaint if the decision was unfair.
I told him that wasn't the stage for that. An administrative complaint is a procedure to challenge a decision after it has been made. The claim period is also fixed at ninety days from the date he knows the decision exists. If the decision hasn't been made yet, the tool he can use first is submitting an opinion.
And if he submits a well-written opinion, even if he later has to challenge the decision, the factual background he will use then will already be organized. Skipping the order is like throwing away a tool.
He nodded and wrote "submit opinion first" in his notebook.
Booth Specifications and Paint Purchase Records
To verify the facts, we gathered two documents.
One was the specifications of the paint booth and exhaust ventilation system. We contacted the company that installed the booth to obtain the specifications from the installation time. He said he didn't remember receiving the specifications, but they were found in the company’s email records. They were attached to a three-year-old quote email.
Another thing was the amount of paint and solvents used. There were no separate records for this. So, I requested that they pull the purchase history for the past year, broken down by supplier. Matching the card statements with the suppliers’ tax invoices gave us an approximate average monthly usage.
I’ll briefly explain why this was necessary. Whether a facility is subject to regulations isn't determined solely by "whether painting is done," but by the facility's scale, the materials used, and the actual usage. If you leave the judgment to the official, you need to provide them with the numbers they need for the judgment. If you just say "it's small" without any numbers, the official will inevitably interpret it in the most conservative way.
After organizing the data, the conclusion was clear: this booth was subject to reporting.
He remained silent for a while at this point. I told him that it’s much better to acknowledge it and take action now than to claim it’s not applicable and have it overturned later.
The direction of the opinion letter was decided that day.
There was a small complication in the process of gathering usage data. There were three suppliers from whom we bought paint, and one of them had cash transactions mixed in, so there were months with missing statements.
You’d want to fill in those missing months with guesswork. We didn’t. We used the average of the confirmed months and simply wrote down the fact that there were missing months and the reason for it. Guessing numbers can make the rest of the numbers unreliable if even one of them is wrong later.
Instead, we contacted that supplier and asked if they could check their records. The supplier’s owner searched the ledger and sent us the items and quantities for the missing months in a text message three days later. We captured that text message and attached it to the data.
The data doesn't have to be perfect. It just needs to be clear where the gaps are and why they exist.
Reason for Checking Location First
After deciding on the direction of the reporting, we checked the location before writing the documents.
We looked at the building permit to see the purpose of that unit and checked the land use plan to confirm the zoning. The building where the workshop was located was a building with several small manufacturing facilities, and there were no issues regarding allowing this facility based on zoning.
I’ll explain why this check came first. If the conclusion was that the facility couldn't be located in this space, the direction of the opinion letter would have to be "plan to demolish or relocate the facility" instead of "reporting." That’s a completely different cost and a completely different schedule. If you submit the reporting form without knowing that, you’ll waste time listening to the reasons why the reporting isn’t approved later.
Fortunately, there were no problems this time. His expression eased up a little for the first time. 🙂
It's easy to read the regulations, but it's difficult to know which regulations to bring up and when.
While checking the location, we also looked at one more thing: the lease agreement.
The workshop was in a rented space, and installing exhaust ducts would require drilling new holes in the walls. If you make modifications without the landlord’s consent, you’ll solve the environmental problem but create a new problem with the lease. The lease agreement included a restoration clause and a clause requiring prior consent for facility modifications.
So, I advised them to contact the landlord before getting quotes for the pollution prevention facilities. We also created a short request letter outlining the scope and duration of the work, and the method of restoration upon vacating. The landlord agreed two days later, and we captured the consent in a text message.
This is a section that is often missed in environmental permitting cases. Schedules often stop at the consent of a single landlord, which is more common than you think.
Get Quotes from Two Places
To submit the reporting, we also had to decide how to handle the pollution prevention facilities. Pollution prevention facilities are equipment that reduces pollutants emitted from the emission source. For painting facilities, adsorption methods are common.
Here, that "exemption" story that he had seen on the internet came up again. It was a description of how pollution prevention facility installation could be exempt if certain conditions were met. We examined whether those conditions were met, but it didn’t seem likely in this case. Writing a document based on the premise of exemption will cause the entire document to be shaken if the exemption is not recognized.
So, we decided to proceed with installing pollution control facilities and got quotes from two places. One was the company that installed the booths, and the other was a company specializing in pollution control facilities.
The two quotes differed in terms of construction period, not price. One said three weeks due to material procurement, while the other said ten days. While it wasn't possible to complete the installation by the opinion submission deadline, the ability to include the contract and start date in writing was a significant difference.
He chose the ten-day option. The price was slightly higher. Considering three months of backlogged orders, the shorter downtime for the workshop was ultimately cheaper.
In the meantime, we also had to decide how to handle painting. Continuing to run the booths without pollution control facilities would make any written opinion unconvincing. It would mean a continued state of violation.
So, we decided to outsource the painting to an external painting company until the installation was complete. The workshop would handle the cutting and assembly, and sanding, but the parts would be shipped for painting. This incurred transportation and outsourcing fees, and created orders that were delayed by a week.
He personally called the customers of the delayed orders. He didn't explain the situation in detail, simply stating that the painting equipment was being serviced and the delivery would be delayed by a week. There were no cancellations.
This decision filled the third item of the opinion. The single line, "Cease painting operations until pollution control facilities are installed," became a fact, backed up by the external outsourcing contract.
What Was and Wasn't Written in the Opinion
We submitted the opinion two days before the submission deadline. It consisted of four parts.
First, the facts. We described when and how the painting booths were installed, including specifications and usage data. We acknowledged the obligation to report as is.
Second, the reason for non-reporting. We truthfully stated that we misunderstood the content regarding exemption from pollution control facilities. We wrote it briefly to avoid sounding like an excuse.
Third, actions already taken and the schedule. This was the core of the document. We included the location confirmation results, a copy of the pollution control facility contract, the planned start and completion dates, the planned submission date of the installation report, and a statement that painting operations would be suspended until the pollution control facilities were installed. In fact, they started outsourcing painting to an external painting company from that week.
Fourth, a request for leniency. We mentioned the business was small, that we proactively took action, and that operations were halted immediately upon recognizing the violation.
There were also things we didn't write. We didn't mention the complainant at all. Who filed the complaint isn't the crux of this case, and mentioning it would turn the written document into a record of emotions.
Challenging established facts diminishes the credibility of the remaining statements. Instead, it's more effective to show what has been done, along with dates. ✍️
We also paid attention to the length. The main body of the opinion was three pages long, and the rest was attachments. Specifications, usage summary, location confirmation data, landlord consent, pollution control facility contract, external painting outsourcing contract. Each attachment was numbered, and the numbers were referenced in the main body.
This makes it easier for the reader to cross-reference claims and evidence. A long main body obscures the evidence, and too many attachments obscure what is being conveyed. Keep the main body short, and use numbers for the evidence. This was the most painstaking part of this case – numbering the attachments.
On the day the opinion was submitted, he went back to the workshop and posted a single sheet of paper on the painting booth door. "Do not use until pollution control facilities are installed." To prevent the two employees from using the booth as a habit.
A Single Sheet Sent to Neighbors
In addition to the opinion, he did something that I hadn't suggested.
He distributed A4-sized notices to the residents of the same building and the neighboring building. It explained that painting work would be temporarily outsourced, the dates of the pollution control facility construction, the possibility of noise during construction, and a line apologizing for the inconvenience.
There was no content attempting to identify the complainant. Nor was there any content demanding an apology. It was simply a paper informing them of changes.
Although outside of administrative procedures, it’s worth noting. Odor complaints often escalate not from the odor itself, but from the feeling that "no one cares." A single notice can change that feeling.
They said the same complaint hasn't been received since then.
The next day after distributing the notice, the president of the printing shop next door came to the workshop. He said he was actually bothered more by the sound of the exhaust fan at night than by the odor itself. He decided to finish his stamping work before 6 p.m. from that day on.
Complaints often differ slightly from what is written in the documents and the actual inconvenience. Some issues are resolved through documents, and others are resolved through a single conversation with a neighbor. An administrative agent can help with the former, but cases handled by those who take care of the latter tend to end more quietly.
A Single Character Engraved on a Cutting Board
There was a small anecdote related to this case. 😊
During the week that the pollution control facilities were installed, he brought in a single, unfinished wooden cutting board. It was walnut, and he had branded the workshop’s name into one corner with a heated tool.
However, one character was incorrect. Specifically, one of the consonant clusters was missing.
He noticed this while handing over the cutting board and said he would take it back and correct it on the spot. I told him it was okay, that I preferred it as it was. Ultimately, the cutting board remained in the workshop.
I still occasionally cut fruit on that cutting board. Every time I see the misspelled name, I remember those twelve days.
Result
The total period was approximately seven weeks. From the preliminary notification to the submission of comments, it took ten days; installing the pollution control facilities took ten days; the installation reporting and repairs took two weeks; and it took another week to start operation.
The disposition was organized considering the measures stated in the comments. Specific disposition details vary depending on the case and individual circumstances, so I won’t be listing them here.
However, it’s worth noting that the specifications and usage data that I had gathered were directly attached as supporting documents when filing the installation report. The data collected for verification purposes made up half of the reporting documents. This was thanks to arranging the order of work from the beginning to overlap the work done for the comments and the work to be done for the reporting.
I also organized the tasks to be performed after operation began. This included how to keep operating records, the filter replacement cycle for the pollution control facilities, and items to be checked regularly. I advised them to reconfirm their eligibility with the relevant department, as additional obligations may apply depending on the facility’s size.
I think what remains with him practically are two things. One is that the workshop hasn’t stopped. Although he outsourced the stamping work, the cutting and assembly continued, and not a single order was canceled in three months. The other is that this facility is now also in order on paper.
The latter is more important. A facility operating without notification can easily return to the same situation with a single complaint.
Even after the notification was approved, there was one more thing to do. There is a separate procedure to notify that the facility will actually be operating before it starts operating. Installation notification and operation commencement are different stages. If you simply turn on the booth after the notification is approved, the same problem could arise in another department.
Therefore, we first determined the operation commencement date and prepared the necessary documents accordingly. We also included the operational test results received from the pollution control facility vendor. On the day the first stamp was made, he placed an operating record notebook next to the booth. The notebook had columns for the date, working hours, and paints used.
That notebook will be the first document reviewed during the next inspection. This time, the numbers will already be there.
I’ll also mention the costs. The only expenses incurred this time were the installation cost of the pollution control facilities and the outsourcing cost for external painting. If the notification and pollution control facilities had been handled together when the booth was installed three years ago, the installation cost would have been the same, but there would have been no twelve days of anxiety.
The cheapest time for administration is usually when nothing is happening.
In our last conversation, he casually mentioned that he’d never been so concerned about opening windows before. He said he’d probably just be able to open the windows this coming fall.
A Few Things to Keep in Mind
If you’re in a situation like this, please proceed in this order.
① Provide the basis for the judgment that it "doesn't apply due to its small size." Whether a facility is subject to emission facility regulations is determined by the type, scale, material, and location of the facility. Simply stating "it's small" without numbers like specifications and usage amounts won't suffice as documentation.
② Installation reporting and pollution prevention facility exemption are separate questions. Even if a pollution prevention facility may be exempt, an installation report may still be required. Mixing the two can lead to a situation like this case.
③ Site confirmation should come before the application. Whether a facility can be placed in that location depends on the building's purpose and zoning. Skipping this step can prevent the application from being approved.
④ In your opinion letter, write "what was done" with dates, rather than "what should be done." Actual, verifiable items such as copies of contracts, commencement dates, and operational suspension status will be reviewed.
⑤ Don't write down the complainant's story in writing. It's not an issue, and it turns the written record into an emotional one. A single notification informing the neighbors of the changes would be more effective.
The applicability of permits and reports for air emission facilities and pollution prevention facility standards vary depending on the facility and location and change frequently. Requirements vary from case to case, so individual confirmation from the relevant department is necessary.
This case is a fictional story reconstructed for understanding purposes, and the characters, names, locations, and figures involved are not related to any specific individuals or events.
This is an administrative agent's office located in Songdo, Incheon (Posco Tower Songdo). We handle administrative litigation, permits/applications/filings, foreign entry/exit (visas/residence), and regular administrative management for Incheon Yeongu-gu and surrounding areas. In environmental permits, the order of procedures often determines the outcome more than the equipment itself. If you have a similar situation, feel free to contact us.
━━━━━━━━━━
Hwang Yun-sang Administrative Agent's Office
📍 165, Consia-daero, Yeongu-gu, Incheon, 2697, Posco Tower Songdo
📞 010-3374-2687
🌐 www.hwangadmin.com
━━━━━━━━━━
#AirEmissionFacilities #EmissionFacilityInstallationReport #CleanAirConservationAct #SealingFacilities #PollutionPreventionFacilities #EnvironmentalPermits #Pre-NotificationOfDisposal #OpinionSubmission #StudioCreation #IncheonAdministrativeAgent #IncheonYeonguAdministrativeAgent #SongdoAdministrativeAgent #AdministrativeAgent
If you are curious about similar situations, feel free to contact us.