Japan’s Asbestos Analytical Method Fails to Meet ISO Requirements
Kevin Carroll – President, EA International
It was 2005 when Japan was gripped by its most recent “asbestos panic” when Kubota admitted paying sympathy money to families of mesothelioma victims living in the plant neighborhood. Japanese regulators responded to the public outcry by stiffening Japan’s definition of “asbestos-containing material” to include all materials containing more than 0.1% asbestos.
Japanese occupational and public safety and health laws were updated in 2006 to stipulate that all asbestos analyses in Japan must use only the Japan Industrial Standard (JIS) analytical method (the JIS method).
ISO (International Organisation for Standards) Working Group TC 146/SC3 is developing the ISO Asbestos Analytical Standard (ISO DIS 22262-1). The Standard is divided into two sections; Part I being the identification (Qualitative) and Part II being content (Quantification) analyses.
Japanese panel members have campaigned for the past five years to include the JIS method in the ISO standard, claiming that the method meets ISO accuracy requirements.
The Group provided Japanese delegates with blind asbestos reference samples in 2008 as a test to prove the accuracy of the JIS method. The 2009 Japanese results reported that the JIS method had failed to identify any asbestos in approximately 40% of the positive (asbestos-containing) blind reference samples and had grossly underestimated asbestos content in approximately 53% of the positive samples. As a result, the Working Group voted to reject the JIS identification method in 2009. Part 1 of the standard has now reached the point in the ISO development and approval process where no technical method changes are permitted.
The Japanese government must now decide whether to accept the ISO asbestos analytical results under Japanese law.
This decision will significantly impact public healthcare costs and real estate property valuations.
Since Japan has required use of the inaccurate JIS identification method, many Japanese buildings previously deemed “asbestos-free” may actually still contain asbestos. Therefore, real estate asbestos liability costs calculated from the JIS results have most likely understated the property costs for removal or control of asbestos. These costs of these liabilities are required to accurately appraise building values under IASB accounting standards (IASB 37). Correcting the understated liabilities will likely further devalue Japan real estate holdings and may explain why the Japanese delegates have fought to include JIS in the new ISO Standard. Japan has lost this ISO fight, but the Japanese government has no response or guidance at this time.