Seoul City and Korea National Railway and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport are at odds over the 178-ton rebar omission at the Great Train Express (GTX)-A Samseong Station integrated transfer center construction site, with the city saying it was "an issue already reported" and the others saying it was "effectively difficult to recognize." Observers note that controversy has grown because current rules lack a requirement to make a separate urgent report for major structural defects identified before an accident occurs.
On May 20, according to the office of Kim Jong-yang of the People Power Party, Seoul City reported to Korea National Railway through a construction project management monthly report in Nov. last year that Hyundai Engineering & Construction had omitted rebar from the GTX-A platform construction section on the fifth basement level of the underground integrated transfer center on Yeongdong-daero in Gangnam District, Seoul, contrary to the design.
A construction project management report is an official document in which the construction project manager reports key progress on schedule, quality and safety to the ordering agency. It is not mere References, but a report under the Construction Technology Promotion Act that includes detailed tasks such as construction, inspection and testing of major structural components. Under a consignment agreement with Korea National Railway, Seoul City has submitted the report every month.
At the time, the report was found to include a note that main rebar had been omitted in the GTX platform section on the fifth basement level. The responsible construction project management engineer wrote in the work log to the effect that "due to a drawing interpretation error, 80 rebars weighing 2.23 tons each were left out, resulting in a total omission of 178.3 tons of rebar, so structural safety was reviewed." Although the design called for two rows of main reinforcement, only one row was built due to a worker's mistake.
Regarding the controversy over "delayed reporting" raised in this case, Seoul City says it was "an issue already reported in accordance with formal procedures." A city official said, "We detected the omission of rebar during a voluntary inspection in the course of construction, then prepared supplementary measures and reported them to the corporation," adding, "There was no procedural flaw."
Korea National Railway, on the other hand, says it is hard to view the matter as an official report. A corporation official said, "While some related details could be found in part of the construction project manager's work log, it is difficult to regard only some entries included in a voluminous report as a separate report on a major structural defect."
An official at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) also explained, "Even the 'examples of construction failures' item in the body of the interim construction project management report was marked 'not applicable,' and the related content was written only in the work log, making it difficult to grasp the matter immediately."
This controversy is tied to the ambiguity over how and to what extent major structural deficiencies identified before an accident must be reported immediately. Under the current Construction Technology Promotion Act, missing rebar constitutes construction of a major structural component that differs from the design documents, but it is not clearly defined as a separate urgent reporting item. It is mainly managed by reflecting it in the construction, quality and inspection items within the construction project management report.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act also only requires employers to report damage and actions taken without delay when a serious accident occurs; it does not designate a major structural defect that has not yet led to an accident as a separate urgent reporting item. In the end, the difference in interpretation between Seoul City's "we reported it" and the corporation and MOLIT's "it was not at a recognizable level of reporting" arose amid a regulatory gap.
However, some experts say that apart from gaps in the rules, if the issue was directly linked to structural safety, a more proactive and explicit report should have been made. Rather than merely including it in the work log within a monthly report, a separate official letter or an emergency reporting system should have been activated.
There is also criticism that Korea National Railway is not free from responsibility. Since Seoul City has submitted construction project management reports every month, the ordering agency should also have had a system to sift and manage warning signs buried in the voluminous reports.
Choi Myeong-gi, a professor with the Korea Industrial Field Professors Group, said, "While minor defects are often reported to the client after analyzing the cause and preparing alternatives, the principle should be to report major structural defects immediately, regardless of whether rules exist," adding, "It is necessary to codify an immediate reporting system for major defects through contracts or guidelines."
The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) plans to investigate Hyundai Engineering & Construction's faulty work while also looking into whether Seoul City and Korea National Railway bear responsibility for delayed reporting. A MOLIT official said, "The reporting responsibility inspection team will examine the process by which the faulty construction occurred and the appropriateness of the work, and will hold accountable any parties responsible, whether in the city or the corporation."