Experts question steel plant's reopening

Company had been shut due to regulatory, safety and environmental violations

The government's decision to allow Xin Ke Yuan Steel to resume operations has raised fresh questions about public safety and whether regulations adequately address concerns surrounding steel produced through induction furnace (IF) technology.

The debate extends beyond a single steelmaker to the broader issue of how regulators should respond when structural engineers and industry experts continue to raise concerns about materials used in critical infrastructure and buildings.

Xin Ke Yuan Steel is a Chinese company operating in Thailand. The company was accused by the previous government of producing substandard steel products. An earthquake on March 28, 2025, led to the collapse of the 30-storey State Audit Office (SAO) building, killing nearly 100 people.

Xin Ke Yuan Steel, which had been shut for more than 18 months over regulatory, safety and environmental violations, was cleared to resume operations on June 5 after authorities concluded the company had complied with the conditions required for reopening.

The government, however, insists the reopening was required under existing law after the company addressed deficiencies identified by regulators and met the necessary standards.

Industry Minister Varawut Silpa-archa has pledged more frequent inspections of steel plants and said IF-based steelmakers will be required to install and operate ladle refining furnaces to strengthen quality control.

He warned that production could again be suspended if future tests uncover violations or substandard products.

Yet the controversy surrounding the decision to reopen the plant has not subsided.

Among the most prominent critics is Prof Amorn Pimanmas, president of the Thailand Structural Engineers Association, who has called for stricter oversight of IF-produced steel, separate technical standards and clearer product identification.

He argues steel produced through induction furnace technology may be more vulnerable to quality inconsistencies if manufacturing controls are inadequate, particularly when recycled scrap metal is used as feedstock and secondary refining processes are insufficient.

He also urges authorities to consider restrictions on its use in critical structures, high-rise buildings and areas vulnerable to seismic activity.

Following heightened concerns over construction standards after the March 2025 earthquake and the collapse of the SAO building under construction, some government agencies, including the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, have reportedly restricted the use of IF-produced steel in major infrastructure projects such as bridges, elevated roads and rail systems.

The restrictions themselves do not prove that IF-produced steel is unsafe, but they raise legitimate questions about how risks associated with the technology are being assessed.

Additional questions have also been raised by Atavit Suwanpakdee, a former adviser to Industry Minister Akanat Promphan who previously helped lead inspections that resulted in the plant's closure. Mr Atavit questions whether existing quality-control and testing procedures are sufficient to ensure product safety, calling for stricter safeguards governing the use of IF-produced steel in critical structures and public infrastructure projects.

These concerns deserve attention, even though manufacturers argue that IF technology is widely used internationally and can produce steel that meets required standards when proper quality controls are in place. Moreover, investigations into the collapse of the SAO building have yet to establish whether steel quality played any role in the disaster.

However, the more important question is whether Thailand's standards and oversight mechanisms adequately address concerns raised by structural engineers. When respected experts question whether current regulations sufficiently account for the limitations of a particular production process, those concerns warrant serious scrutiny.

Recent reports from the Philippines have drawn attention to concerns about construction quality and material standards in earthquake-prone areas. While direct comparisons should be approached with caution and investigations into specific structural failures remain ongoing, such incidents serve as a reminder that weaknesses in oversight often become apparent only after disaster strikes.

The reopening of Xin Ke Yuan Steel should prompt the Industry Ministry to undertake a broader reassessment of whether regulations governing IF-produced steel remain adequate to safeguard public safety.

The government may be correct in arguing the company fulfilled the legal conditions required for reopening. Yet legality and public confidence are not always the same thing.

When concerns continue to be raised by structural engineers, industry groups and even some public agencies, policymakers should view them not as obstacles to industrial activity but as opportunities to strengthen public trust.

When public safety is at stake, meeting the minimum legal requirement should be regarded as the starting point of regulatory responsibility, not the end of it.