The depths of data fabrication
(From The Japan Times Dec. 5 issue)

耐震データ偽造、問題の奥深さ

    On Nov. 17, the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry announced that Aneha Design Office in Ichikawa, Chiba Prefecture, had fabricated such data for 20 condominiums and a hotel in Tokyo, Chiba and Kanagawa. The announcement was made following notification from a state-designated building design certification agency that it had failed to detect the data fabricated by Mr. Hidetsugu Aneha of the design office.

    A 1981 stipulation under the Building Standards Law states that buildings, be they ferroconcrete or wooden, must not be damaged by a jolt of 5-plus intensity on the Japanese scale of 7 and must not collapse in a quake of at least 6-plus intensity.

    Fourteen of the 20 condominiums were found to have 26 percent to 78 percent of their required strength. Thirteen were considered susceptible to collapse in a 5-plus-intensity quake.

    On Nov. 28, the ministry announced that Mr. Aneha had calculated quake-resistance design data for 201 buildings, and that data was found to have been falsified for 36 of them — 21 condominiums and 15 hotels throughout the nation. Three design certification agencies failed to notice the data fabrication. In addition, five local governments were unable to detect the fabrication. The building-safety scandal is widening, with the number of structures determined to have been built with falsified quake-resistance data having climbed to 57 as of Dec. 6.

    What is most worrisome is the possibility that the current scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. As part of the move to delegate as much government work as possible to the private sector, a revision to the law enabled government-designated private agencies to certify building designs beginning in 1999. At present, there are 122 such agencies. In fiscal 2004, private agencies checked some 420,000 building designs while local governments checked about 330,000.

    Mr. Aneha told ministry officials that construction companies had told him they would switch to another design office if he did not reduce the number of concrete reinforcing bars in designs. During a Nov. 29 Diet hearing, however, officials from construction companies denied that their companies had exerted any pressure on Mr. Aneha.

    The Diet hearing revealed rather strange behavior on the part of a ministry official. The president of a certification firm, whose notification led to the ministry's Nov. 17 announcement, told the Diet that although he sent an e-mail informing the ministry that data falsification had been detected, the ministry official responded only that the firm should settle the matter and that the ministry would not involve itself.

    The president also disclosed that a structure design expert had tipped him off that another certification firm became aware of data falsification by Mr. Aneha about a year before the scandal surfaced. On the basis of this tipoff, the president said, his firm had checked the design data and confirmed the falsification. The firm mentioned in the tipoff admitted later that it had received a report that Mr. Aneha's work was shoddy.

    Former National Land Agency chief Kosuke Ito was found to have visited the ministry, together with the presidents of two condominium developers involved in the scandal, but allegedly sat silently beside them throughout their explanations to a ministry official before the Nov. 17 announcement.

    Suspicions about this unfolding scandal deepen even more because the players involved — Mr. Aneha, the design certification agencies, construction firms and condominium developers, and perhaps even the ministry — appear repugnantly reluctant to take responsibility, unable to understand their situation or void of professional ethics.

    Police should carry out a vigorous criminal investigation to uncover the whole picture, including whether other parties exerted undue pressure on Mr. Aneha.

    Some residents affected by the scandal have been ordered to evacuate their condominiums. They must deal with finding new residences, paying for the move, paying back their housing loans, and demolishing and replacing their buildings.

    The government should extend the greatest possible help to them, including offering free public housing. It may even need to consider doing more than it is allowed to do under present law. It also should find out why design certification agencies failed to detect the data fabrication.

The Japan Times Weekly
Dec. 10, 2005
(C) All rights reserved

    国交省は11月17日、千葉県市川市の姉歯建築設計事務所が東京都、千葉県、神奈川県のマンション20棟、ホテル1棟の耐震データを偽造していたと発表した。

    建築基準法では、鉄筋コンクリート、木造にかかわらず、すべての建物は震度5強の地震で損傷せず、震度6強でも倒壊しない強度を最低基準としている。

    だが当初問題となったマンション20棟のうち14棟は必要強度の26〜78%しかないことが分かり、13棟は5強の震度でも倒壊の恐れがあるという。

    国交省はさらに11月28日、姉歯建築士は全国の201棟の建物の耐震構造計算を行ったが、そのうち36棟のデータが偽造されていたと発表した。検査機関3社と5地方自治体は不正を見抜けなった。6日現在で57件の偽造が判明している。

    11月29日に開かれた衆院国土交通委員会の参考人質疑で、ある検査機関の社長は、国交省の担当者にメールで構造計算書の偽造問題が起きたので相談したいと伝えたが、担当者は検査機関自身で問題を解決せよと答えたと述べた。

    また、耐震データ偽造についての国交省発表前に、伊藤元国土庁長官はマンション開発業者2社の社長と共に国交省幹部と面会したという。

    姉歯氏、検査機関、建設業者、マンション開発業者、加えて国交省も問題の責任を取ろうとしない。

    マンションの居住者の一部はすでに退去勧告を受けて、代替住宅探しや引越し費用の支払いをせねばならず、住宅ローンの残債も抱えている。

    政府は関係マンションの居住者に、公共賃貸住宅の無料提供などの援助を最大限行うべきである。現行法で許される以上の援助措置も必要になろう。また、なぜ検査機関が偽造を見抜けなかったかを徹底的に調査するべきだ。