The Göd Samsung SDI speaks out — the plant answered every question for Index

In recent months the Göd Samsung SDI battery plant has found itself in the crossfire of the press and political battles, lately even being labelled a “death factory”. Péter Paplanos, the plant’s communications lead, answered Index’s questions and addressed the accidents at the plant, the explosion, the pollution accusations and the secret-service angle.

At the centre of the scandal that has developed around the Göd battery plant in recent months are the questions of worker safety and pollution. Paplanos denied to Index that the plant is more dangerous than other similar plants, while admitting that there were shortcomings in the past. The company has by now spent HUF 200 billion on occupational-safety and environmental improvements, and more than 200 employees deal with these issues.

They answered the gravest accusations

Some call the plant — in whose café we are sitting right now — a death factory. Do I have reason to worry?

We are sorry that such a situation could arise. We understand that people are primarily concerned about their safety and the protection of their environment. For Samsung SDI these are also the most important values. While problems may have occurred in the initial phase of starting production, the company continuously improved its operations and resolved them. At our Göd plant we have already spent more than HUF 200 billion on protecting our employees and the environment, and this figure is constantly growing. More than 200 of our employees work on occupational and environmental protection. There is no other company in the country that has been inspected by the authorities so many times and in so many ways, and we cooperate with them and with the surrounding municipalities in every case.

You’re not claiming that none of the cases reported in the press are real?

Of course not. In the case of building and then operating a plant of this scale and complexity — where, on top of that, a new technology is being introduced — problems have occurred and may occur. However, reality differs greatly from what has been reported in the media. Samsung SDI’s Göd plant is one of Hungary’s most modern and safest plants. The most important thing for us now is to speak openly about our experiences, to keep improving our processes, and to show that we are committed to transparent operation and a green future. According to the regular, quarterly measurements of the Göd and Vác municipalities, no harmful substance has ever entered the local soil, water or air as a result of the plant’s operation.

Yet your plant is said to be one of the most dangerous in the country. There must be some basis for it if so many people say so.

I do not wish to comment in any way on what considerations may have been behind creating this image. It is better to focus on the facts. The fact is that since the plant began operating, well over ten thousand people have worked here, and a total of two serious accidents have occurred. Contrary to the news reports, the fact is that there is not a single labour lawsuit against the company arising from health damage. The fact is that we currently have more than two thousand employees who have worked at the plant for more than five years — indeed, many have been here for nine years without any health problems. The plant also continuously carries out accredited measurements to protect the environment; the town of Göd has built its own air- and water-quality monitoring system. These measurements have never detected any pollution.

Poisoning at the battery plant?

According to the official inspection reports obtained by Átlátszó, the authority found elevated exposure on seven occasions in a total of 133 employees in 2021 and 2022, and in a further 44 employees in 2023. What happened to these workers?

No illness related to increased exposure has been reported at the company. We continuously carry out occupational-health examinations on our employees, performing the tests in full compliance with the law. Of course, no elevated value can be taken lightly, and we took the necessary steps in every such case. Medical care was not required in a single case. We regularly perform BEM tests on those employees who work with hazardous substances that have limit values.

What does this test show?

BEM is an occupational-health screening test that measures the possible presence of metals in workers’ bodies. The test is carried out from a urine sample. A positive test does not mean illness, but indicates that these metals have entered the body in greater than the permitted amount. The frequency of testing depends on the risk classification; Samsung SDI carries out the test every six months.

What did you do if someone’s test was positive?

If someone’s BEM test was positive, before they could return to their original position they had to undergo testing again and received refresher training on the proper use of protective equipment. The problem was not at all general. Only a few percent of people working in the same area tested positive; the vast majority tested negative. We continuously train employees on the proper use of protective equipment and also improve the work environment.

This contradicts what is claimed in the press, citing internal sources, that several employees did not receive adequate chemical protective clothing or masks.

It must be acknowledged that in the past, since the company did not yet have a properly developed management system for monitoring the wearing of protective equipment, such problems could have occurred; by now we have remedied all earlier shortcomings. Today we provide all workers with the most modern, cutting-edge protective equipment, and a strict internal monitoring programme guarantees their full use.

It is also claimed that, instead of eliminating the root of the problem, Samsung SDI began rotating workers between departments. Did this happen?

During monitoring examinations, in the manner specified by law, an employee must be removed from increased exposure if their health results justify it. In connection with BEM examinations this is a general procedure, not only in battery manufacturing but in every industry where an employee may be subject to increased exposure.

There was an explosion, but no fire or collapse

Citing a former middle manager’s memo, 444 wrote that at the turn of 2017–2018 there was an explosion at your facility when critically concentrated NMP solvent ignited as a result of a spark of unknown origin. Did such an explosion really happen?

During the event seen in the video, one of the drying units — which serves to remove moisture from the electrodes — exploded due to overpressure; however, no spark or fire occurred, and there was no personal injury.

According to the document, the resulting fire was so severe that the ceiling collapsed on two levels. Why did you not inform the public and the authorities about this?

As I have already mentioned: no fire occurred. There are cases in which a company has an immediate obligation to report, and cases in which this is not necessary. Since there was no personal injury and no hazardous substance entered the environment, the event did not qualify as an incident requiring a separate reporting obligation, but we immediately reviewed our internal safety protocols. We corrected the fault, the technology has since been secured many times over, and no similar incident has occurred since.

There was a fatal accident, and according to Samsung much false rumour

According to the official occupational-safety authority decision obtained by Magyar Narancs, an accident occurred at the plant on 3 November 2021 in which a 27-year-old maintenance worker lost his life. The authority found that Samsung SDI also made mistakes in training and that the production lines were not stopped in accordance with the regulations.

A tragedy like this is an irreplaceable loss that deeply shook our entire community and the company’s management. The fact, however, is that after the accident we immediately stopped the affected production line, and every measure in the production unit involved in the accident was taken on the basis of the authorities’ guidance.

Several sources claim that after the accident the body was removed and production restarted immediately, but the workers were unwilling to return to work. Do you confirm or deny this?

This is a completely untrue claim. The fact is that in the area affected by the accident, restarting production was not even considered until all the official inspections had taken place and the full internal investigation of the case had been completed.

“No emissions above the limit value occurred”

Based on the official data of the National Environmental Information System, Átlátszó reported that the Göd plant emitted 88 tonnes of toxic solvent into the air between 2019 and 2022. How could this happen?

Samsung complies with every air-protection requirement and regulation in its operation. Emissions above the limit value have not occurred in a single case. The data cited in the article, which appear in the annual report, are merely estimated quantities, i.e. they are not based on the results of actual measurements. This is supported by the figures based on real, actual measurements of 0.354 tonnes in 2020 and 6.742 tonnes in 2022. In 2025 the total annual emission quantity was 3 tonnes. The value in the cited report was the theoretically possible maximum value, i.e. in the then-current regulatory environment it would still not have exceeded the limit value.

What did the more recent, last-year measurements show?

Last year’s external, accredited measurements also confirm the same: the town of Göd has regularly measured air quality since 2023, and not a single one of its measurements detected the presence of NMP. The Duna Menti Regional Waterworks also carries out independent expert examinations, checking the water of the Göd water-base wells. The accredited laboratory did not detect NMP in a single sample.

Foetus-damaging substance in Göd’s waters?

According to a Greenpeace laboratory examination, the wastewater flowing next to the Samsung plant in February 2024 contained 200 micrograms of NMP solvent per litre. How could a solvent toxic to the foetus have entered the municipal wastewater network?

Just these days the Göd municipality announced that no NMP used for battery manufacturing was found in the Göd groundwater in the monitoring wells established by the municipality. This is a credible and accredited measurement. The DMRV’s independent, accredited measurement produced the same result. Regarding the earlier news, it is important to put the figures in context: 200 micrograms is 0.2 milligrams. At accredited laboratories this falls below the detectability value — which is 1 milligram per litre — i.e. it is such a small quantity that it cannot even be precisely detected with current technology. It should be known that NMP is a widespread substance, used for example in plant-protection products in agriculture, so in principle it can enter the environment from numerous sources. We work with strict, closed technology so that nothing can escape from our own processes.

“There was only graphite dust on the roof”

According to news reports, dark spots were visible on the plant’s roof in satellite images, and the contamination originating from them was removed several times. If it was harmless, why did it have to be removed?

It was indeed graphite dust, which accredited measurements also confirmed. The fact that we carried out maintenance work on the roof was not an extraordinary cleaning action but a basic part of operations: we regularly maintain and de-dust all our buildings for the sake of preservation and protection against leaks. In the past the efficiency of the dust extractors was not yet adequate, which is why it could happen that graphite dust escaped and settled on the roof. On 25 April 2025 the environmental authority carried out official, accredited soil sampling at 6 points; based on the laboratory results, there was no limit-value exceedance in any sample for nickel, cobalt or lithium.

Péter Magyar’s video

In Péter Magyar’s video, a former subcontractor claimed that between 2019 and 2022 Samsung SDI was subject to disaster-management inspections every 3–6 months, that the plant knew the exact date in advance, and that 30–50 truckloads of hazardous material had to be transported to external warehouses. What is your response to this?

Let us clarify that two types of official inspection exist under the law: announced and unannounced inspections. There was not a single case in which the company received advance information about an unannounced inspection. The transport of raw materials to external warehouses was completely independent of the official inspections. The company has a permit to store a given quantity at the production site; when it was foreseeable that a larger-than-permitted quantity of raw material would arrive, it ensured that the quantity beyond what was permitted was removed without delay.

According to a former middle manager’s memo, you also played tricks when measuring noise by switching off the furnaces. Is this true?

Maintaining continuous production does not allow boilers or furnaces to be switched on and off for the duration of production. The environmental authority did not announce in advance when it would measure noise. We must also note that in 2022 a fine was imposed on us for exceeding the noise level; at the same time, noise-reduction measures were continuously taken: the noise sources were given noise-protection casings, and at the houses closest to the plant the company also built a noise-protection wall. As a result, the plant continuously operates below the permitted limit values.

The plant’s environmental-use permit was annulled by the court at the end of November 2025, yet the plant did not stop. Why not?

The Curia, Hungary’s highest judicial body, set aside the ruling that had suspended the permit. We have a valid, integrated environmental-use permit, and at every moment of our operation we have operated in compliance with the law. The company had a reduced-mode operation; now the Curia has ruled that the plant may operate at full capacity. In practice, the reduced capacity allowed operation at a little less than half of full capacity.

Is there a chance the taxpayers’ money will pay off?

According to some calculations, Samsung SDI received more than HUF 187 billion in state support. Is there a guarantee that Hungarian taxpayers’ money will be recouped?

This HUF 187 billion should be viewed in light of the company’s economic performance. Between 2020 and 2025 the company paid roughly HUF 255 billion in taxes into the state treasury, and this figure is constantly growing. The 2025 revenue was HUF 1,240 billion, which contributed entirely to Hungary’s export performance. Samsung has carried out investments worth a total of about EUR 7.5 billion in Hungary, and there was a year in which it produced 1 percent of Hungary’s GDP.

“The secret-service surveillance is a fabrication”

According to Telex’s investigation, the Constitutional Protection Office, supervised by Antal Rogán, launched secret data collection against Samsung. Could this be true? Did you know about this surveillance?

We too saw this information in Telex’s article. Given that Samsung SDI is the most inspected company in Hungary by the authorities, it is not apparent what the point of such data collection would have been. I assume that even if secret data collection had existed, it would not have been shared with the company concerned, so the news that Samsung SDI may have known about it is entirely untrue — just as it is very likely that the whole topic is pure fabrication.

According to the Publicus Institute’s survey, 75 percent of Hungarians have heard about the battery-plant affair, and 70 percent of respondents named Samsung SDI’s management as responsible. Do you plan steps to restore public trust?

Of course. We are committed to restoring the public’s trust, and we know that this is a long process. That is why we strive for open and transparent communication. In and around Göd we have spent and are spending on the order of hundreds of millions of forints on social engagement, we cooperate with several Hungarian universities, and we also operate a research and development centre in Göd. The company devotes 5 percent of the total investment cost, i.e. HUF 71.9 billion a year, to environmental protection, health and safety (EHS). Safety and environmental protection are the company’s most important core values.

The interview was originally published on Index (20 March 2026, by Balázs Rádi). The source of the photos: Péter Papajcsik / Index. We reproduce the interview in full, with attribution of the source.