This paper gives an introduction to the field of human factors with the focus on their influence on the reliability of NDT in the nuclear energy production (in-service inspections) and final storage of highly radioactive nuclear waste. A set of methodological tools has been developed in the scope of three projects, namely: 1) a theoretical model describing potential human factors influencing manual ultrasonic inspection performance during inservice inspections in nuclear power plants; 2) a method for identifying potential human errors during acquisition and evaluation of data gathered with mechanized ultrasonic, radiographic and eddy-current systems, as well as visual testing with a remote camera (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis, FMEA); and 3) use of eye tracking methodology to optimize existing procedures and practices. The experimental results have shown that time pressure, mental workload and experience influence the quality of the inspection performance. Noticeable were influences from the organization of the working schedule, communication, procedures, supervision and demonstration task. Implementing human redundancy in critical tasks, such as defect identification, as well as using an automated aid (software) to help operators in decision making about the existence and size of defects, could lead to other kinds of problems, namely social loafing (excerpting less effort when working on tasks collectively as compared to working alone) and automation bias (uncritical reliance on the proper function of an automated system without recognizing its limitations and the possibilities of automation failure) that might affect the reliability of NDT in an undesired manner.
In comparison to manual NDT methods, mechanized NDT is considered to be more reliable for a number of reasons, one of which being that the role of the inspectors and, therewith, the potential for human error, have been reduced. However, human-automation interaction research suggests that in spite of its numerous benefits, automation can lead to new yet unknown risks. One of those risks is inappropriate reliance on automation, which can result in automation misuse and disuse. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential inappropriate use of automation (specifically - the automated aids) in NDT addressing therewith the prevalent belief in the high reliability of automation held by the NDT community. To address this issue, 70 NDT trainees were asked to control the results of an eddy current data evaluation, allegedly provided by an automated aid, i.e. indication detection and sizing software. Seven errors were implemented into the task and it was measured to what extent the participants agreed with the aid. The results revealed signs of both misuse (agreeing with the aid even though it is incorrect) and disuse (disagreeing with the aid even though it is correct) of the aid that can affect the reliability with which inspections are carried out. Whereas misuse could be explained by a lower propensity to take risks and by a decreased verification behaviour-possibly due to bias towards automation and complacent behaviour-, disuse was assigned to problems in establishing the sizing criterion or to general difficulties in sizing. The implications of these results for the NDT praxis including suggestions for the decrease of automation bias are discussed.