Recommendations for Developing Nuclear Power Plant Field Operators’ Visual Inspection Rounds

Abstract

Nuclear power plant (NPP) field operators (FOs) conduct daily visual inspection rounds to detect deviations in process values or plant state, promoting safe and stable operations. This study aimed to develop recommendations to support visual inspection utilizing a participatory development process involving the Finnish nuclear community. First, to gain a systematic representation of the good practices and development needs, a survey was sent to all Finnish FOs (N = 114) across five units; 36 responses were received. As a result, eight recommendations were drawn covering topics, for example, work practices, FO training, and equipment supporting inspection. These were then discussed in a joint workshop with Finnish NPP representatives. The recommendations were generally well-received, though their usefulness and feasibility varied between the units; some could be directly implemented, while others served as tools for reflection and development. The participatory approach underpinned the relevance and practical applicability of the recommendations for developing the FO work.

Introduction

In a nuclear power plant (NPP), safety is ensured at all levels of operation. One measure to secure the integrity of the plant is the field operator’s (FO) visual inspection rounds. Traditionally, visual inspection is regarded as one of the non-destructive testing techniques used to detect surface defects and anomalies through direct observation (See, 2012). However, in this paper, visual inspection is used in a broader sense, referring to the inspection rounds FOs conduct in NPPs daily. During these rounds, the field operators check the status of equipment, validate readings from instrumentation, and make sure that the premises are in appropriate condition. For this, they do not only use their vision, but also other senses such as auditory, haptic, and olfactory senses (i.e., hearing, touching, and smelling). The objective of the inspection is to ensure that everything is as it should be and to detect those deviations that might endanger the production process or plant safety.

In this study, we developed recommendations on how to support FOs in their visual inspection rounds. Both training for inspection rounds as well as performing the rounds were covered. An approach of participatory development, including a survey and a workshop, was used to ensure the relevance and practical applicability of the recommendations.

First, based on our earlier work (Liinasuo et al., 2024; Passi et al., 2024), we developed a survey on FO visual inspection training and practices and distributed it to all NPP field operators in Finland. Based on the survey results, a preliminary set of recommendations was drawn. The FOs’ survey responses and the preliminary recommendations were then presented and discussed in a joint workshop with operator trainers and other experts in the field. This paper describes the participatory development process of the recommendations and their applicability in Finnish NPPs.

Background

Earlier Work

This study is the final phase in our series of studies focusing on NPP FO visual inspection rounds. In the first two studies (Liinasuo et al., 2024; Passi et al., 2024), five FOs representing all five operating units in Finland were interviewed.

The first study (Passi et al., 2024) examined how visual inspections are conducted in Finnish nuclear power plants (Passi et al., 2024). It was found that visual inspection rounds are typically conducted twice in a 12-hour shift. The FOs consider this possibly their most important work task. The visual inspection rounds were mainly conducted similarly across all units. However, there were differences in the recording tools used in the rounds and whether interruptions were allowed. For example, in one plant, round values were recorded using paper and pencil, whereas in the other, digital logging devices that also displayed a brief history of process values and could take photos and record sound were used. Further, FOs in one unit stated that rounds are not interrupted by other work tasks, while operators in the other four units were accustomed to interruptions and did not perceive them as disruptive.

Our second study focused on FOs′ experiences in conducting these rounds (Liinasuo et al., 2024). We found that the FOs face several challenges in the inspection rounds. Even though the FOs collaborate with a multitude of NPP personnel, the rounds are experienced as rather solitary and even monotonous. The work heavily relies on tacit knowledge; FOs are simply said to know when a sound, vibration, odor, or temperature is outside the normal range. All this is learned in the field; first, during the field training period when working alongside one’s mentor, that is a senior FO, and second, by work experience, by performing the rounds throughout the years. Furthermore, all interviewees described routine as an inherent part of inspection work, and many had to fight against boredom during the rounds. This was thought to increase the risk of missing important changes in the plant state. Lastly, there were some between-unit differences in how the FOs are trained and how the rounds are carried out. Differences in inspection practices were also found within the unit, mainly stemming from variations in how the inspection methods are delivered to the new FOs. For example, the mentoring FO conveys to the trainee how to use senses, which can increase inter-individual differences in these practices. Also, the trainer’s motivation impacts the effectiveness of the learning process.

Need for Development

Even though there were good practices that clearly benefitted the FOs’ work and ensured safety, certain development needs were identified. However, since the findings of the first two studies (Liinasuo et al., 2024; Passi et al., 2024) were based on a small sample of interviews, it remained unclear to what extent the views expressed reflected personal opinions and experiences rather than those of the entire unit. Therefore, a study with a larger sample size was needed to get a more systematic representation of FOs’ opinions on their inspection work and development needs. Combined with literature on good practices in visual inspection, this would enable the development of feasible and actionable recommendations to support inspection work reliability. For this purpose, we created a survey, which was sent to all Finnish NPP FOs. Based on the survey results and existing literature (e.g., Cumblidge et al., 2017; Vasconcelos et al., 2019), including our earlier studies on the topic (Liinasuo et al., 2024; Passi et al., 2024), we outlined recommendations that were further discussed in a participative workshop.

Methods

Online Survey

The online survey consisted of 21 statements (Table 1), and the FOs were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree—5 = strongly disagree). Each statement was also provided with an open field in which they could elaborate on their responses. The survey was arranged around the following four themes: (1) Training for visual inspection rounds; (2) Developing expertise and supporting motivation; (3) Well-proven work practices; (4) Additional training and feedback on the work. The link to the survey was sent to all FOs in Finland (N = 114) working in the two operating NPPs (Teollisuuden Voima Olkiluoto and Fortum Loviisa), which comprise a total of five NPP units. The FOs responded to the survey anonymously.

Table 1.

Survey results.

Statement	Plant	1	2	3	4	5
Classroom training should place more emphasis on conducting inspection rounds.	A	0%	36%	36%	27%	0%
	B	8%	20%	12%	36%	24%
Sensory-based observations during inspection rounds in the classroom training phase should be addressed more systematically.	A	0%	27%	36%	36%	0%
	B	0%	24%	24%	28%	12%
During the field training, someone else who is also an experienced operator should occasionally act as the guide instead of the designated mentor. *	A	0%	55%	27%	18%	0%
	B	0%	32%	12%	28%	28%
More attention should be paid to the selection of the mentor guiding the new operator.	A	0%	0%	20%	50%	30%
	B	7%	10%	7%	36%	40%
The training of mentors in how to provide guidance should be increased.	A	0%	9%	45%	36%	9%
	B	8%	16%	28%	28%	20%
The compensation or benefit the mentor receives for their guidance work is sufficient.	A	0%	11%	11%	33%	44%
	B	92%	8%	0%	0%	0%
There should be more variety in how the inspection rounds are conducted.	A	0%	36%	64%	0%	0%
	B	12%	28%	40%	16%	4%
Inspection rounds should be done more often with another operator/colleague. **	A	33%	67%	0%	0%	0%
	B	50%	25%	25%	0%	0%
Training aimed at a deeper understanding of equipment operation and processes should be increased.	A	0%	0%	9%	64%	27%
	B	0%	8%	20%	60%	12%
Inspection rounds should not have to be interrupted due to other tasks.	A	9%	64%	18%	9%	0%
	B	0%	8%	16%	20%	56%
There should be no rush during inspection rounds.	A	0%	0%	0%	36%	64%
	B	0%	0%	0%	12%	88%
I have sufficient opportunities to consult a colleague, maintenance personnel, or a supervisor regarding inspection work.	A	0%	0%	18%	27%	55%
	B	0%	4%	4%	16%	76%
I receive sufficient feedback on my inspection work	A	0%	0%	55%	18%	27%
	B	8%	24%	4%	40%	24%
The feedback given on inspection work should be improved, either in quantity or quality.	A	12%	12%	50%	12%	12%
	B	8%	24%	36%	24%	8%
Recording equipment values during inspection rounds is an important part of the inspection work.	A	10%	20%	10%	50%	10%
	B	0%	8%	8%	32%	52%
Recording sensory observations (e.g., unusual sounds, smells, temperature, vibration) during inspection rounds is an important part of the inspection work.	A	0%	0%	0%	40%	60%
	B	0%	0%	0%	26%	84%
Double-checking recordings improves the reliability of the inspection work.	A	0%	9%	18%	55%	18%
	B	0%	20%	24%	8%	48%
The ability to see various target or limit values related to the equipment during inspection rounds helps in detecting changes and deviations.	A	0%	0%	18%	55%	27%
	B	0%	0%	4%	12%	84%
The ability to see equipment values recorded during previous inspection rounds helps in detecting changes and deviations.	A	0%	0%	18%	55%	27%
	B	4%	0%	0%	12%	84%
The ability to see sensory observations recorded during previous inspection rounds helps in detecting changes and deviations.	A	0%	0%	15%	62%	23%
	B	4%	9%	4%	26%	57%
The ability to capture images, audio, or video of the inspected object improves the reliability of the inspection work.	A	0%	0%	9%	27%	64%
	B	0%	4%	8%	32%	56%

Note. Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Somewhat Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Somewhat Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.

Scale *: 1 = No at all; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = 20 % of the rounds; 4 = 35% of the rounds; 5 = 50% of the rounds.

Scale **: Not at all; 1 = 25% of the rounds; 2 = 50% of the rounds; 3 = 75% of the rounds; 5 = Always.

Drafting the Recommendations

Based on our earlier two interview studies (Liinasuo et al., 2024; Passi et al., 2024), as well as previous literature on good practices in inspection work (e.g., Cumblidge et al., 2017; Vasconcelos et al., 2019), and the survey results, three researchers involved in this work outlined a set of eight recommendations. In this process, the survey results, given on a Likert scale, and the open field clarifications were analyzed, both at the plant and unit levels, for comparison purposes. The Likert scale responses were visualized as percentages. The open field answers providing deeper insights into the FOs’ experiences were first cleared of personal identifiers and then grouped together based on the four themes. The views of the FOs were reflected against research literature on good practices in visual inspection. Hence, the recommendations were grounded in established research as well as previously proven practices and theory.

Participatory Development of Recommendations in the Workshop

The visualized results of the survey and the recommendations drafted by the researchers were presented to 10 NPP experts (six from TVO Olkiluoto and four from Fortum Loviisa) in a collaborative workshop. The participants represented training, research and development, human resources, and operations departments. The 3-hour workshop, facilitated by the researchers, was organized as a Teams meeting. The recommendations were discussed individually from two main perspectives: first, the usefulness of the recommendations in improving FO work or process safety, and second, the practical applicability of the recommendations. Comments were noted down.

Results

Online Survey

Altogether, 36 of all 114 FOs (11/48 in Loviisa, 25/66 in Olkiluoto) completed the survey (response rate 32%). In the following, the results are presented around the same themes as the survey statements.

• 1) Training for visual inspection rounds: One-third of the respondents felt that conducting sensory-based inspections should be covered more extensively during a classroom training phase. On the other hand, it was also stated that conducting inspection rounds is best learned during the rounds. Almost all FOs agreed that more attention should be paid to the selection of the mentoring FO who works as a guide for the new FOs in the field training phase. In addition to the expertise and motivation of the senior FO, their commitment to the guiding task should be emphasized in the selection.

• 2) Developing expertise and supporting motivation: The majority of the FOs considered recording equipment values as an important task. Open questions revealed that FOs sometimes need to record futile values, e.g., values of equipment that is not currently running. Utilizing all sensory information (i.e., sound, smell, and touch) was seen as crucial. The FOs unanimously agreed that having threshold/target values available, as well as those recorded by previous shifts, improves the reliability of the inspection work. Also, the possibility of recording video and sound was seen as improving reliability.

• 3) Well-proven work practices: According to the respondents, there was no need to increase variety in inspection rounds. This may be because, in some units, the FOs do not inspect the same areas consecutively; instead, they swap the inspected areas with their partner from shift to shift. Regarding round interruptions, the FOs of one unit stated these are not allowed. In other units, operators were used to having their rounds interrupted by other work tasks (e.g., process separations and reconnections), and these interruptions were not perceived as disruptive to the inspection work.

• 4) Additional training and feedback: Almost all FOs wished for additional voluntary training, especially on equipment function. Concerning feedback from inspection work, the vast majority were satisfied with the adequacy of the feedback. It was pondered on which basis the feedback should be provided and how the person giving feedback could be aware of the quality of the round conducted; the rounds are conducted typically alone, and there is no one to observe the FO carrying out the inspection. The FOs also stated that the information about plant deviations is passed on, but not further discussed.

Preliminary Recommendations

Eight preliminary recommendations were drawn:

• R1) Conducting inspection rounds has an inherent risk of developing into a monotonous routine over time—avoiding too much routine by incorporating changes and variability can support vigilance, decrease boredom, and protect inspection performance;

• R2) More focus should be placed on teaching how to conduct sensory-based inspections already in the classroom training phase;

• R3) One should ensure that the mentor FOs assigned to the FO trainee in their field training phase are motivated on their task;

• R4) The inspection rounds should not be interrupted;

• R5) The FOs should be provided with more voluntary, additional training, e.g., on systems and devices to support competence and motivation;

• R6) Recording equipment readings, etc., information during the rounds should be developed so that only the necessary readings and information would be recorded;

• R7) Feedback practices should be developed to increase systematic and constructive feedback and to provide information on how observations made during inspection rounds are handled in the deviation management process;

• R8) FOs should carry and use up-to-date and reliable sound and video recording devices in their rounds, which allow them to transfer data to other plant information systems.

Participatory Development in the Workshop

In general, the recommendations were well received in the workshop. The appropriateness of the recommendations somewhat differed between the plants and even units. This was largely due to differences in working cultures and the equipment available for the job. For instance, one plant already had quite good possibilities to record video and sound (recommendation #8; R8), whereas in the other, the acquisition of such equipment was still in the planning phase. While some recognized that, indeed, inspection rounds could become boring routines, they also mentioned that measures to add variety and mitigate the issue had already been taken (R1). Some saw the routine from a different perspective; they believed that routine could support the ability to notice changes in the plant state, as when everything remains constant, it is easier to detect deviations. Although it was acknowledged that interruptions may interfere with situational awareness, those cannot be entirely avoided (R4). This is because process management, the primary cause of interruptions, is of a higher priority than the inspection round.

When discussing training (R2, R3, R5), it was seen that the visual inspection skills are mainly learned through field training. However, one workshop attendee brought up that additional classroom training concerning how the human sensory system functions, for instance, could be beneficial (R2). Such training would help individuals become aware of potential human information-processing biases, thereby improving the reliability of inspection work. Also, additional voluntary training received support (R5). A deeper understanding of equipment functioning, rather than process understanding, was seen as increasing interest in and motivation towards inspection work, and hence possibly reducing some level of monotony.

One key component of the workshop was that the plant representatives were first presented with the FOs’ survey results in a visualized Likert scale, providing a clear and structured representation of their views. Hence, these visualized answers provided a solid basis for presenting the recommendations. In the end, none of the recommendations were rejected, even though there were some reservations about how they could be practically implemented.

Conclusion

As already found in earlier studies (Passi et al., 2024), visual inspection rounds are trained and carried out fairly similarly in all Finnish NPP units. Yet, due to certain differences in practices, the suitability of the recommendations for the units also differed. For instance, in some units, more advanced digital logging devices were already in use, whereas in others, paper and pencil methods were still employed. Hence, the recommendations outlined in this study are best seen as guidelines for good practices. They can be reflected against current practices to evaluate whether there is room for improvement or whether the issue in question is already well addressed.

Including different organizational levels, from workers and trainers to HR and managerial-level representatives, in a participatory development process for improving work practices can be recommended. It might also be worthwhile to consider including worker-level individuals in the workshop to enhance communication between different organizational levels. This could further promote collaboration and mutual understanding.

Moreover, the workshop was held jointly for representatives from the two Finnish NPPs operating under different power companies. This further promoted already existing collaboration between the NPPs and allowed them to compare their practices and learn from each other. On the other hand, it is possible that arranging separate workshops for each NPP would enable the provision of more tailored plant-specific recommendations, while encouraging more open discussions without the comparison aspect being present. Overall, this protocol of participatory development, combining both scientific evidence from research literature and practical information collected from the nuclear community was successful in first increasing awareness among managerial-level individuals about the FOs’ experiences of potential issues related to their work, and second, in developing actionable, evidence based recommendations for enhancing the reliability of inspection work. This ensures that the tools and recommendations are tailored to the specific needs and context, making them more relevant and practical while also fostering effective communication across different organizational levels (Teperi et al., 2022).