During the period from July 24 to July 26, 2002, the 24th peer review was carried out on the Hitachi Administrative Division of Hitachi, Ltd. (Hitachi-shi, Ibaraki Prefecture). In the peer review, Mr. Watari, former director of the Quality Assurance Department of Japan Air Lines, an airlines industry expert for Human Factors, from outside NSnet membership, participated as an observer over a period of two days. We would like to introduce his opinions and impressions, which we have compiled below.
The purport of introducing the observer this time and the contents of the observer evaluation (perspectives) have been indicated separately.

1. Results of peer review activity evaluations
The results were compiled into "Peer review activities in general," "Method of review," and "Messages for other safety activities."

(1) Peer review activities in general
- Over the two-day period participating in the review as an observer, I felt that the review had the common goal of "increasing nuclear power safety" on both the reviewers side and the hosts (the organization undergoing the review) side. I also sensed that efforts have been made from the same standpoint on both sides, making the review extremely significant.

- Prior to participating as an observer, I had the guess that the review might be a kind of insiders' review of people from the same industry. However, as a result of actually participating in the review, I was able to observe that the reviewers and the hosts carried out extremely frank opinion exchanges.

- From the perspective of corporate confidentiality, I was concerned that the review would be limited. But the answers to the questions asked by the reviewers in the areas of "document examination" and the "field observations" that confirm the actual on-site situation were extremely open, making me feel that the response was serious and sincere.

- (In addition, looking at the situation from my own perspective as an expert in the safety management in the airlines industry), the points raised in the discussions in the review were appropriate and the discussions themselves detailed and comprehensive.

- It seems as if work, such as compiling the review, took place late into the night. To make the rounds of 36 members, a comprehensive review was to take place on common themes among members related to nuclear safety, and those participating in the review handled the process with energy and vitality. However, thinking about the fact that the activities would be carried out continuously, I thought it would be better to focus on fewer review items, thereby lightening the work load borne by the reviewers and hosts.

(2) Method of review
a. [Document examination]
Because of previous visits, the perspective of the reviewers appeared to have been clearly conveyed, which resulted in sufficiently active exchanges of opinion.

b. [Interviews]
I confirmed the situation of interviews with the project managers. The interviews allowed sufficient confirmation of the intentions of project heads that had not been confirmed through the documents.

c. [Field observation]
The situation on the field was inspected thoroughly and questions and answers on this topic took place. However, there was no opportunity to directly ask questions of people working in the field. This was probably the result of trying not to interfere with work. But I did feel as if consideration for enabling field interviews directly with people who worked on site would be better, as a method of confirming whether the ideas of top management were being conveyed to field workers, and conversely, whether top management was comprehending the feelings of the field workers.

1. In consideration of the impact on work and an environment in which it is easy to hold conversations, interviews with workers selected by the host were held in rooms that generally were prepared separately, thereby preventing the interviews from being conducted at the work site.(Management of current status: NSnet Office, supplementary)

(3) Messages regarding other safety activities
- Participating in the review, I was able to sense the sincere attitude in Hitachi, Ltd. with regard to efforts related to safety management and quality assurance.

- Looking at design and manufacture from the standpoint of a specialist in the field of safety management in the airlines industry, there was full recognition of the limits of human capability within the mechanisms of systems, and I feel that it is necessary to fully utilize such recognition. Reliance on humans has changed along with changes in the era and society, and there are no completely safe workplaces or error-free systems. It is therefore necessary to make efforts to discover problems early, and correct them when noticed. In this review, I felt that these were carried out sufficiently as part of the review process.

- When handling improvement measures that in content are stricter than the procedure manuals (for example, improvement regarding safety such as independently increasing inspections from once to twice a month), Japanese tend to think that it is all right not to revise procedure manuals, keeping within the limits imposed by the documents. However, in the U.S., such procedure manuals are not strictly adhered to in this case. In consideration of such thinking, with regard to new changes, I would like to recommend that such changes be looked at from all aspects, and that sufficient checks be made with regard to a system for starting the changes as continuous activities reflected in the appropriate confirmation systems and procedure manuals.

- Lastly, my motto for "safety culture" is "To make continuous efforts to always recognize danger and remove it as much as possible." In addition, the importance of safety must be fostered as part of the culture, throughout the organization, from top to field. Through participation in this review, I was able to see that Hitachi, Ltd. was making efforts toward this goal.

2. Participation status of third-party observer (reference)

(1) Observer: Mr. Kunihiro Watari
Current job:
- Lecturer, Japan Aeronautical Engineering Association (in charge of Quality Assurance, Quality Audit and Human factors)
- Director, Total Flight Operation System Study Group
- Chief, Quality Assurance Research Department, Japan Institute of Human Factors Inc.

Resume:

Publications:
(Co-Translation) - "U.S. FAA - Human Factors Guide for Aviation Maintenance
Authored "Human Factors for Maintenance" (Japan Aeronautical Engineering Association) etc.

(2) Peer review (location)
24th peer review (Hitachi-shi, Ibaraki Prefecture)

(3) Participation schedule
For two days, July 24 and 25, of the review term of July 24 to July 26.