During the period from February 18 to 20, 2003, the 30th peer review was carried out at the Tamano Works (Tamano-shi, Okayama Prefecture), Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (MES) Over a period of two days in the peer review, Mr. Takekawa, Safe, Health and Environment Manager and Safety Resource Business Development Manager, DuPont, participated as an observer from outside NSnet membership. 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. Introduction

DuPont has 11 plants including the joint venture companies in Japan, and I have been disseminating DuPont's safety, health and environment standards for those plants. Recently, I am providing safety services not only at DuPont affiliated companies but also general companies outside the company. While I have been conducting number of safety audits as a part of the activities, I will give a comment on this peer review, based on the work experience.
Meantime, I would like to express my gratitude to NSnet for having given this opportunity and I have a great deal of respect for everyone involved who made extraordinary efforts to hold this peer review.

2. About the Peer Review in General

I have been positively impressed by having observed that the peer reviewers, Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co., Ltd (MES), the company being reviewed, and the NSnet Secretariat put a great deal of energy into preparation. This is extremely proactive and worthy to mention. There is a program in the chemical industry known as Responsible Care that promotes interaction with the community with the objectives to enhance the chemical industry's image. This can be referred to as general risk management including safety, health and environment management conducted in the manufacturing sites for everyone living in the community to deepen understanding and trust in the chemical industry; the program is implemented in 46 countries including Japan. The peer reviews of NSnet's participating companies are forward-thinking and I believe that the steady and continuous implementation of these kinds of activities will help improve the overall image of nuclear power related industries.

3. Positive points in the peer review

I felt that everyone had a high level of understanding of the peer review system and it is being widely communicated. Both the peer reviewers and the company being reviewed showed mutual respect, which can be highly appreciated for being able to exchange opinions in an open atmosphere without attacks or defensiveness. Furthermore, the discussion induced high level of technology and both the reviewer and the reviewee showed high level of expertise from the standpoint of the technology specialists.

4. Suggestions for improvement related to peer reviews

It may be better to reconfirm at the opening what kinds of results are being expected out of the peer review. While both parties would have a common understanding and objectives through the prior preparation process, I think they are different between for prior preparation and the formal peer review. In particular, since I participated in the capacity of an observer, I understand the peer review system well, but I do not understand the circumstances behind this peer review and I may not have always gained a correct grasp on its objectives. I would like to suggest that in the future these matters are clarified for observers who will participate the sessions in the future. To give a specific example, the area of "Safety and Quality Assurance" caught my interest. While I realize that safety is a central theme of the peer reviews, since the standpoint of MES is that of delivering equipment to the nuclear power industry, I had the impression that discussion leaned towards quality assurance. This is also an important discussion, but I had the feeling that this perhaps deviated from the peer review issues, which have as their main objective confirming the level of safety management the company being reviewed is engaged in. From that viewpoint, I felt it was necessary to confirm at the beginning the objectives of the peer review.
I would also like to suggest that the scope of the peer review be clearly defined. While I had impression that overall operations were reviewed in general, it would be better to examine the management systems of the company being reviewed in place and verify the operations against the management systems to confirm wheterh the management systems are really functioning. I felt that discussions were rather based on daily operations. Having participated as a third-party observer, I think it would be good if some consideration were made to balance time for discussion between for the management systems and for actual practices.

5. About Tamano Works, Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (MES)

For this type of operation, I assume orderliness and house keeping is a challenge but I was impressed with the condition of the company review, which was excellent.
I was aware that the operating discipline was maintained at the high level of the standards through numerous activities such as safety-related communications in booklets and on computer screensavers for the purpose of enhancing employees' awareness of safety, environment and work ethics.

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

(1) Observer: Mr. Kunio Takekawa

Position:

Main career and posts:

Other positions:

(2) Peer review (location)
30th peer review (Tamano Works, Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.)

(3) Participation schedule
February 18 of the review term of February 18 to 20, 2003