MTA-TR-002

Return to MTA Table

Administrative Items
Date	12/14/2021
Functional Area Where Benefits Will Be Realized	Training Operations Maintenance
Reference Implementation Guidance	Reality Computing: A Guide to Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, Virtual Reality, and Extended Reality (EPRI 3002013117) 2019 Extended Reality Guidebook: Digital Transformation for Training and Telemetry (EPRI 3002017159) Application of Virtual Reality and Simulation Technologies to Improve Worker Training and Performance, Work Planning, and Facility Design and Evaluation (EPRI 1022310 Archived)
Industry SME	EPRI – Training and Development Contact: NuclearPlantMod@epri.com
Previous Implementation	Virtual Reality training has been implemented at several nuclear power plants. Please contact EPRI SME for more information.
Implementation Enablers	N/A
Applicability	All reactor types All geographic regions
Keywords	Training; Virtual Reality;
Business Case Analysis Cross-Reference	N/A

Description

Training for utility and contractor personnel working at nuclear power plants can be a significant cost driver and require substantial time from trainees and instructors. Conventional nuclear training relies on in‑person sessions, which may require equipment or simulator availability, training windows only available during an outage, or costly and potentially less effective mock‑ups.

Virtual reality (VR) training can provide an effective alternative to conventional training that reduces cost, saves time, and covers a large variety of topics. Typically, VR training models rely on 3‑D computer‑aided design (CAD) drawings of a plant environment to establish a realistic setting for specific training scenarios. This interactive, virtual environment allows the student to engage with the plant layout without actually entering the physical plant, providing flexibility for scheduling of students and instructors and also independence from plant operations. Additionally, virtual training improves personnel safety because training does not need to occur in potentially hazardous areas (e.g., radiation areas, confined spaces, etc.). The virtual environment allows such training to be more effective since it can focus entirely on the desired content rather than concerns with mitigating hazards and associated administrative processes. Some examples of VR training topics include first‑of‑a‑kind mock‑up testing, virtual lockout/tag‑out walk‑down inspections, and pre‑validation testing of new equipment testing and associated operational procedures.

VR training has been implemented successfully in multiple industries, including nuclear. Users in the nuclear industry that have implemented VR training report that VR models are fairly easy to implement and that returns on investment occurred quickly. Additionally, trainees have enjoyed the virtual training, and both trainees and trainers report that the VR option is effective for delivering content.

Benefits

Benefits Estimate

Level 1 – Savings are expected to be up to $1 million per year. Further savings could be realized depending on the extent to which VR training is implemented.

Benefits Description

• Reduction of training cost through more efficient delivery of content that decouples the training schedule from plant availability and access.
• Reduction of training cost from developing a virtual simulator as opposed to a physical one.
• Increased trainee safety by conducting training in virtual environment as opposed to potentially hazardous areas (e.g., avoiding dose).
• Increased training effectiveness for personnel due to more immersive training experience versus traditional classroom training. For example, VR facilitates hands‑on maintenance procedures, 3‑D visualization of components, and familiarization of locations within the plant.
• Decrease of travel burden for trainees who would have required conventional training in another location.
• Eliminates the need for constructing expensive mock‑ups for training, as a VR model only requires a CAD drawing.
• Increased training availability: once a VR training module is created, a trainee can take the training anytime, eliminating constraints due to real‑world training space availability.

Costs and Schedule

Cost

Level 3 – Implementation costs are expected to be less than $1 million. The largest expense is setting up an internal server to host a VR service and the licenses from the VR service.

Schedule

Typical implementation takes approximately 3‑6 months per training module and depends on the complexity of the training module being developed.

Scope Context

Per utility

Risks

Cybersecurity and proprietary information control risks may be associated with the content necessary for specific training modules. If a training module contains sensitive information, the VR program owner should consider where VR training data is stored to minimize cybersecurity risk. To mitigate the risk of sensitive nuclear data being stored on an unsecured cloud, the VR program owner could store all data on an in‑house server.

SWEEP Score

Category	Level	Description
Cost	3	Implementation and use of VR training should be less than $1 million.
Savings	1	Savings achieved through the reduction of training time, travel, administrative processing, and radiation exposure are generally expected to be less than $1 million per year. Additional savings can be achieved by performing training on digital assets, rather than a mock‑up or spare, procured assets (e.g., pumps, valves, etc.).
Payback	3	The payback period depends on the specific use cases but is expected to be within a year of implementation. Very rapid payback may be achieved if the need for a mock‑up is avoided.
Licensing Readiness	3	This technology has already been implemented at nuclear power plants and does not require industry regulatory changes.
Technology Readiness	3	The technology is commercially available and has already been used at nuclear plants.
Implementation Proficiency	2	The implementation of this technology does require familiarity with VR concepts. However, commercially available off‑the‑shelf VR solutions significantly reduce this implementation learning curve.