IEEE

Std 649-1991
(Revision of
IEEE Std 649-1980)

IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E

Motor Control Centers for
Nuclear Power Generating Stations

Sponsor
Nuclear Power Engineering Committee
of the
Power Engineering Society

Approved September 26, 1991

IEEE Standards Board

Abstract: The basic principles, requirements, and methods for qualifying Class 1E motor control cen-
ters for both harsh and mild environment applications in nuclear power generating stations are
described. In addition to defining specific qualification requirements for Class 1E motor control cen-
ters and their components in accordance with the more general qualification requirements of IEEE
Std 323-1983, this standard is intended to provide guidance in establishing a qualification prgram for
demonstrating the adequacy of Class 1E motor control centers in nuclear power generating station
applications.

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017-2394, USA

Copyright © 1992 by the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
All rights reserved. Published 1992
Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 1-55937-166-8

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form,

in an electronic retrieval system or other wise,
without the prior written permission of the publisher.
 IEEE Standards documents are developed within the Technical Com-
mittees of the IEEE Societies and the Standards Coordinating Committees
of the IEEE Standards Board. Members of the committees serve voluntarily
and without compensation. They are not necessarily members of the Insti-
tute. The standards developed within IEEE represent a consensus of the
broad expertise on the subject within the Institute as well as those activi-
ties outside of IEEE that have expressed an interest in participating in the
development of the standard.
Use of an IEEE Standard is wholly voluntary. The existence of an IEEE
Standard does not imply that there are no other ways to produce, test, mea-
sure, purchase, market, or provide other goods and services related to the
scope of the IEEE Standard. Furthermore, the viewpoint expressed at the
time a standard is approved and issued is subject to change brought about
through developments in the state of the art and comments received from
users of the standard. Every IEEE Standard is subjected to review at least
every five years for revision or reaffirmation. When a document is more
than five years old and has not been reaffirmed, it is reasonable to conclude
that its contents, although still of some value, do not wholly reflect the
present state of the art. Users are cautioned to check to determine that they
have the latest edition of any IEEE Standard.
Comments for revision of IEEE Standards are welcome from any inter-
ested party, regardless of membership affiliation with IEEE. Suggestions
for changes in documents should be in the form of a proposed change of
text, together with appropriate supporting comments.
Interpretations: Occasionally questions may arise regarding the meaning
of portions of standards as they relate to specific applications. When the
need for interpretations is brought to the attention of IEEE, the Institute
will initiate action to prepare appropriate responses. Since IEEE Standards
represent a consensus of all concerned interests, it is important to ensure
that any interpretation has also received the concurrence of a balance of
interests. For this reason IEEE and the members of its technical commit-
tees are not able to provide an instant response to interpretation requests
except in those cases where the matter has previously received formal con-
sideration.
Comments on standards and requests for interpretations should be
addressed to:

Secretary, IEEE Standards Board

445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
USA

IEEE Standards documents are adopted by the Institute of Electrical

and Electronics Engineers without regard to whether their adoption may
involve patents on articles, materials, or processes. Such adoption does
not assume any liability to any patent owner, nor does it assume any
obligation whatever to parties adopting the standards documents.
 Foreword
(This foreword is not a part of IEEE Std 649-1991, IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Motor Control Centers
for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.)

The requirements for qualification of Class 1E equipment are included in the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations. Among them are the following:

(1) 10CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria, III — Design Control. This
requires that design control measures be established and that such measures provide
for verifying or checking the adequacy of design. One of the methods of design verifica-
tion is the performance of a suitable testing program.
(2) 10CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria, XI — Test Control. This
requires that a test program be established and that testing be performed under suit-
able environmental conditions. These requirements, at least in part, can be met by
suitable qualification.
(3) 10CFR Part 50, Section 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment
Important to Safety. This rule codifies the qualification requirements for certain equip-
ment, located in a harsh environment, that is important to safety.

Information pertinent to developing designs and their qualification requirements can be

found in the above mentioned documents and in 10CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design
Criteria 1, 2, 4, and 23.
IEEE Std 323-1983 provides general guidance for demonstrating and documenting the ade-
quacy of electric equipment used in Class 1E systems. This standard has been revised to deal
specifically with motor control center equipment, using IEEE Std 323-1983 as the parent doc-
ument for guidance.
Adherence to this standard may not assure public health and safety because it is the inte-
grated performance of the structures, fluid systems, instrumentation systems, and electrical
systems of the station that limits the consequence of accidents. Each user is responsible for
assuring that this standard, if used, is pertinent to his or her application.
Class 1E equipment used in nuclear power generating stations must meet its safety func-
tional requirements throughout its installed life. This is accomplished by a thorough program
of quality assurance, design, qualification, production, transportation, storage, installation,
maintenance, periodic testing, and surveillance. This standard is for the qualification portion
of the program.
The user should note that while this standard covers Class 1E equipment qualification,
other documents such as IEEE Std 603-1980 also require system integrity. Therefore, atten-
tion needs to be given to equipment performance specifications and interfaces to ensure their
adequate performance in a system.
The nuclear power generating station safety analysis, in part, considers the station and its
safety system design in terms of postulated service conditions.
Inherent to each such analysis are two presumptions that must be evaluated. First, designs
must be such that equipment can perform designated safety functions in postulated service
environments. Second, in-service aging must not degrade Class 1E equipment to the point
where it cannot perform designated safety functions when required.
Production testing, normal service testing, and surveillance may not be able to determine
whether the equipment is vulnerable to failure, either as a result of inadequate design or in-
service time and environment, because of the special environmental stresses associated with
some postulated service conditions included in the station safety analysis. Under these cir-
cumstances, common cause failure of redundant Class 1E equipment might occur at the time
its safety function(s) is required. It is the fundamental role of qualification to provide reason-
able assurance, with due recognition given to the established technology, that common cause
failures due to design, manufacture, and age do not exist, and that the design and manufac-
ture are adequate to permit the equipment to perform its safety function(s) during postulated
service conditions.
Synergistic effects and ionizing radiation dose-rate effects have become a concern within
the industry and remain the subject of continuing research programs. Preliminary results
indicate that synergistic effects can be either positive or negative. Such effects should be con-
sidered in developing a qualification program but are not, at this time, part of the require-
ments of this standard.
Motor control centers qualified in accordance with this standard will meet the requirements
of IEEE Std 323-1983 or IEEE Std 627-1980, which provide the basic principles for design
qualification for all safety systems equipment for use in nuclear power generating stations.
This revision to IEEE Std 649-1980 was made to clarify its requirements and to provide
greater detailed guidance on both harsh and mild environment qualification. It also incorpo-
rates recent research on the use of experience data for seismic qualification.
This standard defines requirements that are adequate to qualify motor control centers and
their components located in all areas of the nuclear power generating station, including harsh
and mild environmental areas. At this time, it appears that the seismic event is the only
design basis event with potential for common cause failure in mild environments; however,
other environmental service conditions may also be contributors.
The user of this standard should be aware that other methods of demonstrating qualifica-
tion may be valid and more cost-effective than those described herein. Methodology should be
reviewed at the time the qualification program is established to determine the most effective
manner to demonstrate qualification.
This standard was prepared by Working Group 2.14 of Subcommittee 2 (Qualification) of
the Nuclear Power Engineering Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society. At the
time that this standard was approved, Working Group 2.14 had the following membership:

E. F. Sproat, Chairman

R. P. Cronk G. E. Heberlein M. [Link]

R. A. Giska G. P. Kennedy D. J. Thompson, Jr.
J. Hazeltine B. M. Bharteey

At the time it balloted and approved this standard for submission to the sponsor committee,
Subcommittee 2 (Qualification) of the Nuclear Power Engineering Committee had the follow-
ing membership:

S. K. Aggarwal G. K. Henry N. S. Porter

M. R. Allen P. Kine J. E. Rhoades
R. A. Brown J. T. Keiper C. F. Seyer
N. M. Burstein J. L. Kligerman M. W. Sheets
M. D. Calcamuggio C. E. Kunkel K. M. Skreiner
S. P. Carfagno J. Lasky R. J. Smith
D. J. Castro J. B. McLauglin G. E. Sliter
G. T. Dowd R. B. Miller E. F. Sproat
J. B. Gardner M. Pai L. D. Test
D. Green J. Pirrong I. E. Wilkinson
W. Hadovski F. S. Unmack
 At the time it balloted and approved this standard for submission to the IEEE Standards
Board, the Nuclear Power Engineering Committee had the following membership:

S. Aggarwal J. Forster R. Miller

R. Allen J. Gallagher B. Nemroff
J. Bauer W. Gangloff M. Pai
F. Baxter L. Gaussa, Sr. D. Penland
W. Bowers L. Gonzalez C. Petrizzo
D. Brosnan L. Gardin N. Porter
N. Burstein B. Grim E. Rhoades
D. Candris A. Hall A. Roby
S. Carfagno R. Hall A. Sleva
R. Carruth G. Henry P. Stevens
G. Doman J. Hutson P. Szabados
E. Dowling S. Kasturi J. Thomas
R. Ducharme J. Keiper J. Ullo
R. Dulski D. Lamken F. Volpe
R. Fleming D. Lamont M. Zar
A. Marion

When the IEEE Standards Board approved this standard on September 26, 1991 it had the
following membership:

Marco W. Migliaro, Chair Donald C. Loughry, Vice Chair

Andrew G. Salem, Secretary

Dennis Bodson Thomas L. Hannan John E. May, Jr.

Paul L. Borrill Donald N. Heirman Lawrence V. McCall
Clyde Camp Kenneth D. Hendrix T. Don Michael*
James M. Daly John W. Horch Stig L. Nilsson
Donald C. Fleckenstein Ben C. Johnson John L. Rankine
Jay Forster* Ivor N. Knight Ronald H. Reimer
David F. Franklin Joseph Koepfinger* Gary S. Robinson
Ingrid Fromm Irving Kolodny Terrance R. Whittemore
Michael A. Lawler

*Member Emeritus

Also included are the following nonvoting IEEE Standards Board liaisons:

Fernando Aldana
Satish K. Aggarwal
James Beall
Richard B. Engelman
Stanley Warshaw

Adam Sicker
IEEE Standards Department Project Editor
 Contents
SECTION PAGE

1. Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 1

2. Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 1

3. References................................................................................................................................ 1

4. Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 2

5. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 3

6. Principles of Qualification ...................................................................................................... 3

6.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 3
6.2 Specific Application to Motor Control Centers ............................................................. 4
7. Environmental Conditions ..................................................................................................... 6
8. Margin ..................................................................................................................................... 7

9. Equipment Specification......................................................................................................... 7
10. Qualification Procedures ...................................................................................................... 11
10.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 11
10.2 Inspection ..................................................................................................................... 11
10.3 Base Line Data Measurement..................................................................................... 11
10.4 Aging............................................................................................................................. 11
10.4.1 Aging Alternative............................................................................................ 11
10.5 Seismic Qualification ................................................................................................... 16
10.5.1 Test Alternative .............................................................................................. 16
10.5.2 Combined Analysis and Testing .................................................................... 18
10.5.3 Experience Analysis ...................................................................................... 18
10.6 Harsh Environment Events......................................................................................... 19
10.6.1 General ............................................................................................................ 19
10.6.2 Test Alternative .............................................................................................. 19
10.6.3 Operating Experience Alternative ................................................................. 20
10.6.4 Analysis Alternative ....................................................................................... 20
10.7 Final Functional Tests and Inspection ....................................................................... 20
10.8 Determination of Qualification ................................................................................... 20
10.9 Extension of Qualified Life .......................................................................................... 20

11. Modifications ......................................................................................................................... 20

11.1 Modifications During Qualification............................................................................. 20
11.2 Modifications After Qualification................................................................................ 21

12. Documentation ..................................................................................................................... 21

12.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 21
12.2 Equipment Qualification Data .................................................................................... 21
12.2.1 Service Conditions .......................................................................................... 21
12.2.2 Specific Features............................................................................................. 21
12.2.3 Qualification Plan........................................................................................... 21
12.2.4 Qualification Report ....................................................................................... 22
SECTION PAGE

12.3 Supporting Documentation ......................................................................................... 22

12.3.1 Operating Experience Data............................................................................ 22
12.3.2 Analysis ........................................................................................................... 22
12.3.3 Extrapolation .................................................................................................. 23

APPENDIX

Use of Experience Data in Seismic Qualification of Motor Control Centers............................ 23

 IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E
Motor Control Centers for
Nuclear Power Generating Stations

1. Scope

This standard describes the basic principles, requirements, and methods for qualifying
Class 1E motor control centers for both harsh and mild environment applications in nuclear
power generating stations.

2. Purpose

The purpose of this standard is to

(1) Define specific qualification requirements for Class 1E motor control centers and their
components in accordance with the more general qualification requirements of IEEE
Std 323-1983 [6]1
(2) Provide guidance in establishing a qualification program for demonstrating the ade-
quacy of Class 1E motor control centers in nuclear power generating station applica-
tions

3. References

This standard shall be used in conjunction with the following publications:

[1] EPRI NP-3326, Correlation Between Aging and Seismic Qualification for Nuclear Plant
Electrical Components, Electric Power Research Institute, December 1983.2

[2] EPRI NP-5024, Seismic Ruggedness of Aged Electrical Components, Electric Power
Research Institute, January 1987.

[3] IEEE C37.98-1978, IEEE Standard for Seismic Testing of Relays (ANSI).3

[4] IEEE Std 100-1988, IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms
(ANSI).

[5] IEEE Std 101-1972, IEEE Guide for the Statistical Analysis of Thermal Life Test Data
(ANSI).

1The numbers in brackets correspond to those of the references in Section 3.

2EPRI publications are available from the Electric Power Research Institute, 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94304.
3IEEE publications are available from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Service Center, 445
Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, USA.

1
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

[6] IEEE Std 323-1983 (Reaff 1990), IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Equipment for
Nuclear Power Generating Stations (ANSI).

[7] IEEE Std 344-1987, IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E
Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations (ANSI).

[8] NEMA ICS 1-1983, General Standards for Industrial Control and Systems.4

[9] NFPA 70-1978, National Electrical Code.5

[10] UL 508-1988, The Standard for Industrial Control Equipment.6

4. Definitions

All definitions, except as specifically covered in this section, shall be in accordance with
IEEE Std 100-1988 [4].

harsh environment. An environment expected as the result of the postulated service condi-
tions appropriate for the design basis and post-design basis accidents of the station.7 Harsh
environments are the result of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA)/high energy line break
(HELB) inside containment and HELB or post-LOCA conditions outside containment (see
IEEE Std 323-1983 [6].)

mild environment. An environment expected as a result of normal service conditions and

extremes (abnormal) in service conditions where seismic motion is the only design basis event
(DBE) of consequence (see IEEE Std 323-1983 [6].)

motor control center. A floor-mounted assembly of one or more enclosed vertical sections
having a common horizontal power bus and principally containing combination motor starter
units. These units are mounted one above the other in the vertical sections. The sections may
incorporate vertical buses connected to the common power bus, thus extending the common
power supply to the individual units. Units may also connect directly to the common power
bus by suitable connections.

significant aging mechanism. An aging mechanism is significant if, in the normal and
abnormal service environment, it causes degradation during the installed life of the equip-
ment that progressively and appreciably renders the equipment vulnerable to failure to per-
form its safety function(s) under DBE conditions.

unit. One independent portion of a motor control center vertical section. It is normally a plug-
in module that connects to the motor control center vertical bus.

vertical section. A portion of the motor control center normally containing one vertical bus
assembly.

4NEMA publications are available from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2101 L Street NW,
Washington, DC 20037, USA.
5NFPA publications are available from Publications Sales, National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269-9101, USA.
6UL publications are available from Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-
2096, USA.
7A design basis accident is that subset of a design basis event that requires safety function performance.

2
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

5. Introduction

The manufacturers and users of Class 1E motor control centers are required to provide
assurance that such equipment can meet or exceed its specific performance requirements
throughout its installed life. This is accomplished through a quality assurance program that
includes, but is not limited to, design, qualification, production quality control, installation,
maintenance, surveillance, and periodic testing. This document treats only the qualification
portion of the program.
The purpose of the qualification program is to provide assurance that the motor control cen-
ter is capable of performing its required safety functions with no failure mechanism that could
lead to common cause failures under the postulated service conditions specified in the equip-
ment specification.
Qualification may be accomplished by testing, analysis, operating experience, or a combina-
tion thereof. This standard provides qualification methods for each of these alternatives. With
all qualification methods, the end result is the documented evidence that the motor control
center is capable of performing its required function(s).
Note that the demonstration of the equipment’s ability to perform required safety functions
in accordance with this standard does not constitute a complete design verification of the
equipment being qualified. Rather, it supports the overall design verification process only
with respect to operation under postulated environmental and service conditions.

6. Principles of Qualification

6.1 General. The qualification principles of Class 1E equipment for nuclear power generating
stations are specified in IEEE Std 323-1983 [6]. These principles shall be observed for the
qualification of Class 1E motor control centers.
The fundamental requirement inherent to these principles is that documented evidence
that the equipment is capable of performing its required safety functions before, during, and
after the postulated design basis events, as specified for that equipment, be provided. In gen-
eral, such evidence requires a qualification program that includes both an aging evaluation
and a performance evaluation. The aging evaluation shall first include identification of poten-
tial aging mechanisms of the equipment. For equipment with significant aging mechanisms,
as defined in Section 4, it is necessary to establish a qualified life. In these cases, the qualified
life, as defined in IEEE Std 323-1983 [6], is determined using the qualification methods
described in the remainder of this standard.
The following are the four basic qualification sequences that are addressed in this standard:

(1) For equipment that is located in a mild environment and that has no significant aging
mechanisms, the qualified life determination is not required. The qualification require-
ments are reduced to a demonstration of the equipment’s capability to perform the
required safety functions before, during, and after the specified seismic event.
(2) For equipment that is located in a mild environment and that has significant aging
mechanisms, an evaluation of aging effects must be addressed in accordance with 10.4
prior to seismic testing or analysis.
(3) For equipment that is located in a harsh environment and that has no significant aging
mechanisms, preaging is not required prior to seismic and harsh environment testing
or analysis, and a qualified life determination is not required.8

8This sequence is included herein for completeness but currently has limited applicability to MCC qualification in
harsh environments due to the existence of significant aging mechanisms in most MCC components current avail-
able.

3
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

(4) For equipment that is located in a harsh environment and that has significant aging
mechanisms, preaging must be addressed in accordance with 10.4 prior to seismic and
harsh environment testing or analysis.

The acceptable methods for qualification are testing, operating experience, analysis, or a
combination thereof. Additionally, these methods may be used to extend an established quali-
fied life. Regardless of the method chosen, the end result shall be documented, logical, and
auditable evidence that the equipment can meet requirements. This evidence shall be in a
form that allows verification by competent personnel, other than the qualifiers, and shall con-
tain the equipment specification, applicable qualification methods, the qualification plan,
qualification data, justifications as required, and acceptance criteria.

6.2 Specific Application to Motor Control Centers (MCCs). This standard addresses the
principles of qualification described above by establishing a standard set of equipment opera-
tional and environmental conditions, and then presenting qualification alternatives (test,
analysis, operating experience, or a combination of these) for these conditions9.
The test alternative entails subjecting the equipment to simulated service conditions. The
seismic and harsh environment tests must be done at the assembled or MCC level, unless
only component qualification is required. If individual devices or components are to be tested
for incorporation into an MCC, the environmental and seismic levels to which they are quali-
fied must be at least as severe as those levels that the device will experience in its installed
location in the MCC.
The analysis alternative involves an analytical determination of the thermal, radiation, and
operational aging effects on the equipment followed by either an analysis or test to the DBE
conditions to demonstrate the equipment’s ability to perform its required safety functions.
The operational experience alternative involves the use of documented operating experience
to show that the same or similar equipment has functioned successfully under service condi-
tions that are at least as severe as those postulated for the new application. Fig 1 shows the
qualification process and options in flow chart form.
In all cases in which a specific set of requirements is not encompassed by the standard set of
conditions assumed in this standard, the qualification program shall either be revised to meet
the specified qualification requirements, or the qualification results shall be extrapolated
based upon suitable and documented justification.
The elements of the qualification process for motor control centers and their components as
presented in this standard are

(1) Equipment Specification. For a given application, a specification shall be developed in

accordance with Section 9.
(2) Qualification Program. The qualification program required by this standard is con-
ducted in the following sequence:

(a) Development of a Qualification Plan. The purpose of a documented qualification

plan is to provide an auditable link between the equipment specifications and the
results of the qualification program presented in the qualification report. A qualifi-
cation plan is required. It shall describe the method(s) for identifying any signifi-
cant aging mechanisms, the qualification program as determined from the
identification of the significant aging mechanisms, the specified DBEs, and other
requirements. It shall contain other information as specified in Section 12.

9Though it cannot be presumed that the standard set of equipment operational and environmental conditions pre-
sented herein envelop all applications, both today and in the future, it does provide a basis for development of both
generic qualification programs and user specifications.

4
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

INSPECT
(10.2)*

BASELINE
FUNCTIONS
(10.3)

DO
SIGNIFICANT NO
AGING MECHANISMS
EXIST?
(10.4)

YES

AGING
(10.4)

SEISMIC
QUALIFICATION
(10.5)

MCC
IN HARSH NO
ENVIRONMENT?

YES

HARSH
ENVIRONMENT
QUALIFICATION
(10.6)

FINAL
FUNCTION *NUMBERS IN
(10.7) PARENTHESES INDICATE
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF
THIS STANDARD

Fig 1
MCC Qualification Requirements

5
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

(b) Identification of Significant Aging Mechanisms. Motor control center equipment is

composed of devices and components having a variety of materials, designs, and
functions. Each device or component must be reviewed in terms of its materials,
design, function, and specified environments to identify significant aging mecha-
nisms that could prevent the performance of its required safety functions. The
most likely aging mechanisms for motor control center equipment are the effects
produced by

(i) Operational cycling

(ii) Temperature
(iii) Radiation

When other service conditions such as humidity, altitude, or normal vibration

exist that could potentially produce aging mechanisms, the conditions shall be
specified by the user and addressed in the qualification program. For motor control
center applications, the temperature and radiation effects apply primarily to non-
metallic materials. When it can be demonstrated and documented that these or
other aging mechanisms are not significant, no further evaluation of aging is
required.
(c) Implementation of the Qualification Plan. Qualification procedures described in
Section 10 shall then be used to qualify the MCC and/or its components based on
the results of the significant aging mechanisms identification. Variations from the
conditions specified in the qualification plan require alteration of the procedure
and appropriate justification. The qualification sequence, when the test alterna-
tive is utilized, shall be as follows:

(i) Device (and component) level qualification

(1) Inspection
(2) Baseline data measurement
(3) Aging (if significant aging mechanisms are identified)
(4) Functional tests (if aging is performed)
(5) Seismic qualification
(6) Other tests required by the qualification plan (see 10.6.2)
(7) Final functional test

(ii) Assembled motor control center level qualification (if required)

(1) Device and component testing per steps (1), (2), (3), and (4) above
(2) Seismic qualification
(3) Other tests required by the qualification plan (see 10.6.2)
(4) Final functional test

(d) Determination of Qualification. Qualification shall be determined as outlined in

10.8.

(3) Documentation. Documentation shall be provided as specified in Section l2.

7. Environmental Conditions

The environmental conditions that the equipment will experience under normal, abnormal,
DBE, and post-DBE conditions shall be provided to the qualifier in the equipment specifica-
tion. The motor control center and its components must then be qualified for these conditions
in accordance with Section l0 of this standard. The specific environmental conditions shall be
clearly identified in the qualification plan. The mild environment principles described in 6.1

6
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

and 6.2 may be used in accordance with Section l0 for specific components if so warranted and
justified, i.e., when it can be shown that the specified environment is considered as a mild
environment for the component(s) being qualified.

8. Margin

The purpose of margin in the qualification program is to account for reasonable uncertain-
ties in demonstrating satisfactory performance and normal variations in commercial produc-
tion, thereby providing greater assurance that the equipment can perform under the most
adverse service condition specified. IEEE Std 323-1983 [6], section [Link], provides guidance
for the application of margin in the qualification process.

9. Equipment Specification

The equipment specification for motor control centers shall contain the criteria to be met to
qualify the equipment for its intended application. This specification may be written by either
the end user or the equipment manufacturer, depending on who has the responsibility for pro-
viding the qualification requirements to the organization performing the qualification pro-
gram. As a minimum, the following shall be included:

(1) Equipment Description. The equipment specification shall describe the motor control
center in terms of physical and electrical configuration.
(2) Equipment Safety Functions. The specification shall describe the performance require-
ments and specific safety functions of the motor control center equipment, including
the required operating times; when in the DBE sequence these functions are required
to occur; and the maximum allowable time that a contact subject to chatter can remain
in its unintended state.
(3) Interfaces. Interfaces and loadings via physical attachments to the equipment at the
equipment boundary shall be specified. These interfaces include mounting require-
ments, cable and cable raceway connections, as well as bus duct connections.
(4) Design Standards. Specifications shall indicate, by number and date, applicable UL,
NEMA, ANSI, IEEE, and other industry standards or sections of standards.
(5) Service Conditions. The range of values for operational and environmental parameters
shall be specified for the application. They may include the following as applicable:

(a) Supply and control voltages and frequency

(b) Design ambient temperature
(c) Ambient time/temperature profile
(d) Ambient time/pressure profile
(e) Duty cycle
(f) Seismic requirements
(g) Radiation
(h) Percent relative humidity
(i) Abnormal vibration or altitude
(j) Spray or jet impingement
(k) Electrical loading at rated voltage (inductive and/or resistive)

Normal and abnormal service conditions and conditions resulting from design basis
events shall be specified. The service conditions for these events should be expressed as
a time history for each parameter that may affect equipment functions during the
event.

7
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

(6) Margin. It should be indicated whether or not margin has been included in the speci-
fied values.
(7) Operational Aging Parameters. Operational aging parameters given in Table 1 reflect
typical requirements for a generic qualification program. Where specific applications
require different values, the values shall be specified.

Table 1
Typical Operational Aging Parameters

Test per Five Year Aging Period

Device AC Application DC Application

Contactor 750 operating cycles (maximum 6/min) at nominal Same as ac.

voltage and the following:

(1) Load currents per NFPA 70-1978 [9] values

through the power contacts.

Typical values at 460 V are Typical values for reduced volt-

age starters at 240 V are

NEMA Size 1-14A NEMA Size 1-20A

NEMA Size 2-34A NEMA Size 2-38A
NEMA Size 3-65A NEMA Size 3-89A
NEMA Size 4-124A NEMA Size 4-140A
NEMA Size 5-240A NEMA Size 5-255A

(2) Rated inductive load current through one aux-

iliary contact.

Overload relay 5 Operations at 200% rated current. Same as ac.

Molded case circuit (1) 2 overload trips at 200–600% rated current for Same as ac.
breaker 100–600 A frame thermal magnetic breakers.
size (2) 125 manual operations at 100% rated condi-
tions (voltage and current; maximum 4/min).

Above 600 A frame size (1) 2 overload trips at 200–600% rated current for Same as ac.
thermal magnetic breakers.
(2) 60 manual operations at 100% rated condi-
tions (voltage and current; maximum 1/min).

Fuse and fuse holder See note. Same as ac.

Transformers
(1) Control power No operational aging required. Not applicable.
(2) Distribution No operational aging required.

Auxiliary relay and tim- 750 operating cycles (maximum 6/min at nominal Same as ac.
ing devices voltage with rated inductive load on one contact).

Pushbuttons and selector 750 operating cycles at nominal voltage with rated Same as ac.
switches inductive load on one contact.

Indicating light modules No operational aging required. Same as ac.

Solid state devices Special consideration must be given to solid state Same as ac.
devices. Supplier should be consulted for specific
operational parameters.

Ground fault-sensor/ Same as solid state devices. Same as ac.

relay

Undervoltage and over- Supplier should be consulted for specific opera- Same as ac.
voltage relays tional aging parameters.

8
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

Table 1 (Continued)
Typical Operational Aging Parameters

Test per Five Year Aging Period

Device AC Application DC Application

Disconnect switches 125 manual operations at 100% rated conditions Same as ac.
(voltage and current).

Resistors (power) Not applicable. No operational aging required.

Transfer switches Supplier should be consulted for specific opera- Same as ac.
tional aging parameters.

Stab-on-connections Five insertions and removals. Same as ac.

NOTE: Operational aging of fuses may be accomplished by either natural aging or accelerated aging techniques.
Alternatively, manufacturer’s or other documentation may be provided to verify that, subject to the application,
age is not a factor in causing common mode failures of fuses.

(8) Qualified Life Objective. The desired qualified life objective shall be stated for the MCC
or its component(s) that are subject to significant aging mechanisms.
(9) Acceptance Criteria. Acceptance criteria shall be defined so that all failures to perform
the specified safety function(s) in the service conditions for which the equipment is
being qualified can be identified. The operational tests given in Table 2 reflect typical
requirements for a generic qualification program. Where specific applications require
different values, the values shall be specified; however, care should be taken to ensure
that the acceptance criteria selected are not overly restrictive or based on measure-
ments not related to the specified safety functions.

Table 2
Typical Functional Tests

Operational Test

Device AC Application DC Application

Contactor* Pick up at 110% and 85% of rated Pick up at 110% and 80% of rated coil
coil voltage. voltage.

Device shall not drop out at or Device shall not drop out at or above
above 70% rated coil voltage. 70% rated coil voltage.

Overload relay* Trip on 200% overload within Same as ac.

manufacturer’s time current/
curves.

Molded case circuit breakers* (1) Manual operation. Same as ac.

(2) Trip on 200% of rated current
within manufacturer’s time
current/curves.
(3) Trip on 80–120% of maximum
instantaneous trip setting
(except molded case switches).

Fuse and fuse holder Conduct rated current. Same as ac.

9
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

Table 2 (Continued)
Typical Functional Tests

Operational Test

Device AC Application DC Application

Transformers (control power and (1) Proper secondary voltage is Not applicable.
distribution) present when rated voltage is
applied to the primary leads.
(2) Check insulation strength by
dielectric leakage current mea-
surement.

Auxiliary relays*† Pick up at 110% and 85% of rated Pick up at 110% and 80% of rated coil
coil voltage. voltage.

Device shall not drop out at or Device shall not drop out at or above
above 70% rated coil voltage. 70% rated coil voltage.

Timing devices *† Operate within the limits of manu- Operate within the limits of manufac-
facturer’s specified repeat accuracy turer’s specified repeat accuracy at
at 110% and 85% of rated coil volt- 100% and 85% of rated coil voltage.
age.
Device shall not drop out at or above
Device shall not drop out at or 70% rated coil voltage.
above 70% rated coil voltage.

Pushbuttons and selector Make and break at rated condi- Same as ac.
switches* tions (voltage and current).

Indicating light modules No operational test required. Same as ac.

Failure of the indicating light mod-

ule shall not result in the degrada-
tion of the circuit in which the
light is located (for example, no
short circuit).

Solid state devices Special consideration shall be Same as ac.

given to solid state devices. Sup-
plier should be consulted for spe-
cific operational parameters.

Ground fault-sensor/relay*† Same as solid state devices Same as solid state devices.

Undervoltage and overvoltage Supplier should be consulted for Same as ac.

relays*† specific operational parameters.

Disconnect switches* Make and break at rated condi- Same as ac.

tions (voltage and current).

Resistors (power)) Not applicable. Conducts rated current.

Transfer switches* Supplier should be consulted for Same as ac.

specific operational parameters.

Stab-on-connections Check electrical and mechanical Same as ac.

integrity of connections. No over-
heating while conducting rating
current.
*Device contacts shall be monitored to verify make and break load conditions.
†Requirements for qualification of relays for other than motor control center application may be found in IEEE
C37.98-1978. The user of this standard may wish, in development of a motor control center qualification program,
to incorporate some of these other requirements to achieve broader qualification of relays than just for motor con-
trol centers. In any event, the requirements for qualification of relays in a motor control center program shall be
at least as stringent as specified herein.

10
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

Not all of the acceptance criteria in Table 2 can be demonstrated with the equipment inside
a test chamber. Therefore, the specifier must determine which criteria are to be demonstrated
during and after a harsh environment test. Alternative criteria such as the following may also
be used:
(a) No unwanted tripping of thermal sensitive devices such as circuit breakers, fuses,
and overload relays
(b) No dielectric breakdown that results in the permanent loss of control or main
power voltage
(c) No spurious circuit operations

10. Qualification Procedures

10.1 [Link] section presents qualification procedures for the three qualification alter-
natives: testing, analysis, and the use of operating experience. (See Fig 1 to determine the
applicability of the subsections contained in this section.)
Equipment may be qualified by test, analysis, operating experience, or any combination
thereof. Combined qualification shall be developed on a case-by-case basis by applying the
procedures presented in this section. The qualification methods used shall provide auditable
data by which they can be shown to constitute a complete qualification program.
Regardless of the method(s) used in the qualification program, the equipment is considered
to be qualified when it meets the acceptance criteria listed in the equipment specification (see
Section 9). Any failure to meet the acceptance criteria shall be analyzed to determine its cause
and overall effect on the equipment’s qualification as discussed in 10.8.

10.2 Inspection. Each device to be qualified shall be inspected to verify that the equipment
used in the qualification program is the same as that specified in the qualification plan. A
detailed listing of test specimens by model numbers and serial numbers, when available, shall
be maintained and included in the documentation.

10.3 Baseline Data Measurement. Each device shall be operated under normal environ-
mental conditions to the extremes of all performance and electrical characteristics given in
the equipment specifications. Sufficient data must be taken to serve as baseline data for sub-
sequent functional tests. As a minimum, the functional tests specified in Table 2 shall be per-
formed. The values specified in Table 2 are typical, and the actual test values may vary. The
specifier or qualifier shall assure that the values used are suitable for the specific application.

10.4 Aging

10.4.1 Aging Alternatives. Aging may be addressed by several methods. These methods
include age conditioning (testing), analysis, operating experience, in-service surveillance and
maintenance for extension of qualified life, or any combination thereof. An aging method shall
be selected based on an evaluation of the materials and application of the specific device or
component. Age conditioning or analysis need not be performed even if significant aging
mechanisms exist if naturally aged equipment with proper documentation, which meets the
requirements of section [Link] of IEEE Std 323-1983 [6], is used as the test specimen.
Successful thermal aging of equipment is possible only through careful review of the equip-
ment, its application, and the qualified life objective. Particular considerations for this part of
the qualification program are

(1) The Aging Model. Thermal aging conditions may be established by the use of the
Arrhenius relationship (see IEEE Std 101-1972 [5]). Acceleration factors and test con-
ditions shall be conservatively chosen based on the time/temperature sensitivity of
materials in the device. Where a specific thermal aging acceleration factor for a specific

11
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

formulation of a material is not available, the activation energies for the generic class
of materials used and the temperatures involved may be employed to develop conserva-
tive values for the property of interest.
(2) Temperatures. Selection of aging temperature depends upon the practical upper limit
of the materials involved, the desired aging time, and the in-service ambient air tem-
perature of the equipment. The internal temperature rise in the MCC compartment
shall be included in the Arrhenius analysis. Typical thermal aging conditions are given
in Table 3.

Table 3
Typical Thermal Aging Conditions

Typical
Temperatures

In-service MCC*
External ambient temperature ............................................. 30°C

Average MCC external to internal

air temperature difference .................................................... 10°C

Average in-service device†

ambient temperature............................................................. 40°C

Thermal aging oven internal

ambient air temperature ..................................................... 100°C

Resultant thermal aging

differential temperature ........................................................ 60°C
*The thermal aging portion of this qualification program shall
be based upon a 40 °C in-service motor control center internal
ambient temperature, or upon an appropriately derived equiv-
alent temperature based on the plant temperature profile anal-
ysis for the locations of the motor control center equipment.
The latter option is preferred because it may result in a more
likely temperature value that will produce a significantly long-
er qualified life of the equipment. The specifier shall provide
the temperature profile analysis data to the qualifier, who shall
be responsible for deriving and documenting the equivalent
temperature value.
†This temperature represents the internal ambient air temper-
ature surrounding the devices and does not include tempera-
ture rises within the devices due to self-heating effects.

(3) Qualified Life Objective. At the outset, a qualified life objective shall be chosen for each
device that has significant aging mechanism(s). This determination should be made
after a review of each device and its design, materials, and available operating history
for possible indications of limits on life.
(4) Self-Heating Effects. Device self-heating effects are a significant factor in the life of the
equipment. They are dependent upon the degree of self-heating, the in-service duty
cycle, and other factors. Each device must, therefore, be reviewed in terms of these fac-
tors, and the appropriate effects shall be accounted for. The specifier shall supply to the
qualifier the anticipated duty cycle. In the event that device self-heating effects are not
known, heat rise can be calculated using the guidelines of NEMA ICS 1-1983 [8] or
UL 508-1988 [10].

[Link] Age Conditioning Alternative. The aging mechanisms addressed in this proce-
dure are time/temperature effects, operational cycles, and radiation. One or all of these aging
mechanisms may be addressed via the analysis or operating experience alternatives. In the

12
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

aging test program, the time/temperature effects, radiation exposure, and operational cycles
may be accumulated on an incremental basis.
In this alternative, each device and component with significant aging mechanisms shall be
subjected to an accelerated aging test, which includes thermal aging, operational aging, and
radiation exposure, as applicable. It is recommended that thermal aging and operational
cycling be accumulated on an incremental basis. Additionally, the normal and accident radia-
tion may be combined. A typical sequence is as follows:
(1) Thermally age the device by exposing it to the temperature specified in the qualifica-
tion specification for an equivalent of five years real time10. (See Table 3.)
(2) Remove the device from the high temperature environment. Operationally age the
device for an equivalent of five years, as specified in Table 1, at nominal room tempera-
ture.
(3) Subject the device to gamma radiation to simulate exposure to a total integrated radia-
tion dose equivalent to the aging period used in step (1) above. Alternatively, the total
integrated dose, plus margin, specified for the device may be administered. This test
may be omitted if documented justification is provided.
(4) Subject device to functional tests and compare the results to the baseline data. Docu-
ment the results of the analysis.
(5) Perform manufacturer’s recommended periodic maintenance, if desired, to minimize
the probability of failure during the aging test. If maintenance is performed, its rele-
vance to the determined qualified life and the post installation periodic maintenance
requirements shall be analyzed and stated in the qualification report.
(6) Repeat the above sequence the necessary number of times until an equivalent of the
qualified life objective has been accumulated or a qualified life has been established.
Following the last increment of aging that precedes the DBE test, no maintenance
shall be performed.
Radiation and or operational aging may be required to be done first in the above sequence if
shown and documented to be required to adequately address synergistic effects.
At the completion of the aging cycles, subject the device to the functional tests performed in
accordance with 10.3 to demonstrate operational capabilities. Analyze any anomalies found
for potential impact on the ability of the device to perform its safety function(s). Document the
results of the analysis.
[Link] Aging Analysis [Link] by use of analysis shall consider three sepa-
rate types of aging, i.e., thermal aging, radiation aging, and operational aging. The analysis
must take into account any known synergistic effects among the identified aging mechanisms.
The analysis sequences shown in this section are some of several potentially acceptable anal-
ysis methods that may be used when properly justified and documented.
[Link].1 Thermal Aging [Link] thermal aging effects on a device shall be
evaluated by considering the aging characteristics of the age-sensitive materials and the spec-
ified environmental and operating conditions. The analysis may be performed as follows:
(1) Identify all age-sensitive materials used in the device.
(2) Obtain Arrhenius type data or other applicable time/temperature data (plots of time
vs. temperature, etc.) for each material. Ensure that the material properties for which
data are developed are pertinent to the design requirements of the device (for example,
dielectric strength, flexural strength, etc.) that are necessary for it to perform its safety
function.
(3) For the specified qualified life objective, determine the expected useful life of each
material at the specified environmental and operating conditions. The temperatures
used in this analysis must be based on the material operating temperature expected

10A nominal value that may be varied at the discretion of the qualifier.

13
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

for each application. These temperatures shall consider self-heating effects and the in-
service device ambient air temperature.
(4) If the expected useful life exceeds the qualified life objective of the device being ana-
lyzed, the material can be considered to have no significant thermal aging mechanisms
in the analyzed environment. If the expected useful life is less than the qualified life
objective, the expected useful life then becomes the qualified life for that material. The
qualified life of the device is equal to the shortest qualified life of the materials in the
device that are necessary for it to perform its safety function.
(5) Results of the analysis shall be documented.

Other analysis methods may be used.

[Link].2 Radiation Aging [Link] radiation aging effects on a material, com-

ponent, or device are evaluated by consideration of the aging characteristics of the radiation-
sensitive materials and the radiation dosage to which they are subjected. The analysis may be
performed as follows:

(1) Identify all radiation-sensitive materials used in the equipment.

(2) Obtain radiation damage threshold data, i.e., the level at which properties begin to
change, for each material. Ensure that the material properties for which data are
developed are pertinent and necessary for the device to perform its safety function.
(3) Compare each material’s radiation damage threshold level to the specified radiation
value and determine if the radiation levels to which the materials may be exposed will
cause material property degradation to a level that could adversely affect the device’s
ability to perform its safety function.
(4) When all material radiation damage threshold levels exceed the specified radiation
value, the equipment shall be considered as having no significant radiation aging
mechanisms. If the damage threshold level for any material is less than the specified
radiation value, the qualified life must be determined based on the dose rate and dura-
tion of exposure that the equipment will experience in its installed environment and
analysis of property degradation that the material will experience. The qualified life of
the device is equal to the shortest qualified life of the materials in the device that are
necessary for it to perform its safety function.
(5) Results of the analysis shall be documented.

[Link].3 Operational Aging [Link] operational aging effects on a component

or device generally must be evaluated by performing operational aging testing, as described in
[Link], because operational aging effects on seismic fragility cannot be accurately forecasted
without actual test data. Operational aging effects can be considered using the analysis alter-
native when there is documented evidence from existing test data that the component or
device does not exhibit any deterioration due to aging that effects the ability of the device to
function during or after a seismic event.
The analysis may be performed as follows:

(1) Estimate the total number of operations in each of the Class 1E motor control circuits
and components over the qualified life objective.
(2) Obtain test data that includes life cycle test data that was performed prior to seismic
testing on each piece of installed equipment. This data shall specify the electrical con-
tact loading utilized. Only testing where the contacts were loaded equal to or greater
than the in-service loading can be utilized for this analysis.
(3) If the number of cycles in the test data exceeds the in-service required number of
cycles, and the seismic test data shows no significant deterioration in the seismic fra-
gility levels from the unaged levels, then the equipment can be considered to have no
significant operational aging mechanisms.

14
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

(4) The results of the analysis shall be documented.

[Link].4 Review of Aging [Link] results of the thermal, radiation, and oper-
ational aging analyses shall be utilized to determine the overall aging status of the equip-
ment. Any known synergistic effects of combined thermal, radiation, and operational aging
must be considered in this determination. If the thermal aging, radiation aging, operational
aging, and synergistic analyses all demonstrate that no significant aging mechanisms exist,
then the equipment does not require age conditioning. If any of the thermal, radiation, or
operational aging analyses result in a qualified life less than the qualified life objective, then
the equipment shall be considered to have the lowest of these qualified life values.

[Link] Natural Aging [Link] aged components or devices may be used

in lieu of age conditioning to satisfy the aging requirement. The following requirements shall
be met in order to use this alternative:

(1) Justification that the naturally aged component or device and its materials are similar
to those that are to be qualified has been established. The following characteristics,
among others, may be considerations in establishing adequate justifications:

(a) Component physical arrangement, size, mounting features, interconnections,

stresses, heat generation/dissipation, and materials of construction
(b) Aging effects
(c) Environmental effects
(d) Performance requirements

Analysis or test shall be performed to demonstrate that any differences do not effect
the performance of the component or device’s safety function.
(2) The component or device has been aged in an environment at least as severe as the
normal environment for the intended application.
(3) Operating and replacement/maintenance records for the naturally aged equipment are
available to verify service conditions.
(4) The naturally aged equipment was operated under a load at least as severe as that
specified for the equipment to be qualified.
(5) Documentation supporting the above requirements exists.

[Link] Surveillance and Maintenance Alternative. If naturally aged equipment is

not available with proper documentation, and significant aging mechanisms have been identi-
fied, surveillance and maintenance may be used to avoid performing age conditioning in a
type test program that has extension of qualified life as its objective. Surveillance and mainte-
nance can be used to extend the qualified life of an in-plant device by maintaining the device
in a condition in which the significant aging mechanisms previously identified will not effect
the safety function in the time period to the next surveillance and maintenance, thereby pro-
viding assurance of operability under all conditions.
In order to use this alternative,

(1) A qualified life must have been previously established by test or analysis.
(2) It shall be determined either by test or analysis how often surveillance and mainte-
nance must be performed on each device so that significant aging mechanisms cannot
effect the safety function(s) of the device being qualified.

The specific maintenance actions that must be performed as the result of this determination
shall be clearly delineated in the qualification report. The user shall perform these required
actions to maintain qualification during the installed life of the MCC.

15
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

All surveillance and maintenance records used in conjunction with this alternative shall be
maintained with the qualification records in an auditable form.

10.5 Seismic Qualification. Motor control centers may be seismically qualified by test, com-
bined analysis and testing, or use of operating experience. Seismic qualification of Class 1E
motor control centers shall meet the requirements of IEEE Std 344-1987 [7]. The procedures
and guidelines of that document shall be followed in demonstrating that the Class 1E motor
control centers can meet their qualification requirements. In addition, some specific areas
that are peculiar to motor control centers are listed herein with recommended qualification
procedures to be used. These procedures are intended to supplement those described in IEEE
Std 344-1987 [7] and provide additional guidance for qualifying this kind of equipment. IEEE
C37.98-l978 [3] may be useful in determining qualification of individual devices.

10.5.1 Test Alternative

[Link] Input [Link] input motion shall be in accordance with IEEE Std 344-1987
[7], section 7.6.3. Either single axis, biaxial, or triaxial testing may be utilized subject to the
guidance given in section 7.6.6 of IEEE Std 344-1987 [7].

[Link] Input Signal.A random or multifrequency test signal is preferred. If single fre-
quency type signals (e.g., sine-beat, continuous sine, or decaying sine) are to be used, there
must be justification, or it must be demonstrated that the critical frequencies of the various
components in the motor control center makeup have been addressed. In addition, if a single
frequency type signal is used, the test response spectrum (TRS) must envelop the 3 dB band
pass of the required response spectrum (RRS). If a single frequency signal is to be utilized,
both in-phase and out-of-phase tests shall be conducted.

[Link] Required Seismic Environment. It is preferred that the seismic environment

be defined by a response spectrum for the seismic qualification of motor control centers, i.e., a
required response spectrum (RRS). For motor control centers, the preferred damping value of
the RRS is 5%. Margin, in accordance with IEEE Std 323-1983 [6], shall be included in the
RRS.

[Link] Seismic Qualification Acceptance. The motor control center is seismically

qualified when it has been demonstrated that the equipment is capable of performing its
required safety functions before, during, and after the postulated seismic event, as required
by the equipment specification. With respect to the levels of seismic input motion, the motor
control center equipment is considered to have been subjected to adequate seismic input
forces when the test response spectrum (TRS) envelops the RRS. In developing the TRS at the
5% damping factor, it is recommended that a 1/6 or less octave analysis be utilized.
The general requirement for enveloping the RRS by the TRS can be modified under the cri-
teria given in IEEE Std 344-1987 [7], section [Link].

[Link] Monitoring Equipment. The seismic monitoring equipment used during test-
ing shall be in accordance with IEEE Std 344-1987 [7].

[Link] Numbers of [Link] shall be one or more OBE tests conducted on the same
test sample that produce the documented equivalent effect of 5 OBEs (in each principal direc-
tion) followed by at least one SSE test.

[Link] Mounting. The method of mounting the motor control center may be by either
welding or bolting, as recommended by the qualifier. The method and procedures used during
testing shall be documented and shall be the same as those for the motor control center
installed in the plant. Alternate mounting methods shall be justified.

16
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

[Link] Contact Chatter (Unwanted Change of Circuit Condition).Representative

contacts of each device tested shall be monitored for contact chatter during the operations
specified in [Link]. Selection of these contacts shall be adequate to allow evaluation of
equipment performance. The permissible time for contact chatter of any contact due to seismic
input is dependent on the effect of chatter on the circuit in which the contact is used. The
specifier shall supply to the qualifier the maximum allowable time that a contact subject to
chatter may remain in an unintended state.
As an alternative to this approach, devices representing an actual installed configuration
may be wired into circuits controlled by contacts subject to chatter. Any unintended change of
state of these devices shall be analyzed to determine acceptability.

[Link] Electrical Loading. Unless otherwise justified, all testing shall include electri-
cal loading and energization of representative samples as follows:

(1) Devices shall be tested in both the energized and deenergized state. When energized,
the tests shall be conducted at the lower voltage excitation limits according to Table 2,
unless other values are justified. This includes contactor coils, relay coils, transform-
ers, circuit breakers, and any other device that operates in an energized state.
(2) Load contacts of contactors and circuit breakers shall have the specified load current
passing through them during testing.
(3) Auxiliary contacts associated with contactors, relays, or circuit breakers shall have the
specified load current passing through them during testing.
(4) Typical starter and circuit breaker thermal overload elements must conduct rated load
current during seismic testing.

[Link] Operation of [Link] testing shall include operation of devices as fol-

lows:

(1) Devices that are required to change state (energized to deenergized or vice versa) dur-
ing an SSE by remote means (for example, contactors, relays, or circuit breakers with
shunt trips) shall be operated in a similar manner during testing at the SSE level. If
such action is required only after an SSE, testing may then be limited to operation
after the simulated SSE. Locally operated devices need not be operated during seismic
excitation. Representative samples shall, however, be tested to demonstrate functional
capability for both energized and deenergized conditions.
(2) Contacts whose positions are governed by the state of the device with which they are
associated shall be tested and monitored as follows:

(a) With contacts both open and closed

(b) With devices both energized and deenergized

(3) Each device must experience the seismic input in each state (energized or deenergized)
for the duration specified by the equipment specification. The transfer from one state to
the other may be performed at any time once the specified duration has been exceeded.
(4) Operation of devices under abnormal electrical conditions, such as overload or short-
circuit currents, is not required.

[Link] [Link] interface effect on a motor control center is obtained

where external means are provided to support the weight and provide flexibility of incoming
connections. It is recognized that there are many possible variations. Therefore, anticipated
additional weight and external connections shall be simulated during testing and the inter-

17
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

face/external connections of the final installations shall be within the boundaries of the antic-
ipated conditions simulated during testing.

[Link] Number of Vertical [Link] test sample may consist of one or more ver-
tical sections. Qualification of motor control centers with a different number of vertical sec-
tions than the sample tested is to be justified through analysis of the test data. Justification
shall follow the guidance given in section 8.5 of IEEE Std 344-1987 [7].

[Link] Similar Devices, Units, and [Link] is recognized that the possi-
ble variations of similar devices, units, and arrangements are numerous. Therefore, qualifica-
tion of similar equipment using test data of representative samples previously qualified to
equal or greater seismic requirements shall follow the guidelines described below.

[Link].1 [Link] may be seismically qualified on a generic basis (by group,

family, or type) if it can be demonstrated that their basic operation, function(s), materials, and
design are effected in a similar manner under seismic conditions.

[Link].2 [Link] may be seismically qualified on a generic basis (by group, fam-
ily, or type) if it can be demonstrated that their devices’ basic operations, function(s), materi-
als, and designs are effected in a similar manner under seismic conditions.

[Link].3 Arrangements. The arrangement (physical position) of units within the

vertical sections is critical to the seismic qualification of motor control centers. The arrange-
ments of units shall be as specified in the equipment specification. If no arrangement is speci-
fied, then it is recommended that the test sample be arranged in the worst case seismic
configuration to provide the greatest freedom for location of units within the motor control
center when installed in the plant. Greatest freedom is achieved when the most seismically
sensitive units and largest equipment masses are located in the test sample as near the top of
the structure as is practical.

[Link] Limits of Seismic [Link] qualification shall be limited to the

specific motor control centers identified and shall reference the drawings for the equipment as
shipped. Modifications made to the equipment after shipment, except unit relocations or
exchanges explicitly permitted by the qualifier, require requalification in accordance with
10.5.1 or 10.5.2.

[Link] [Link] documentation requirements shall be in accordance with

IEEE Std 344-1987 [7] and Section 12 of this standard.

10.5.2 Combined Analysis and Testing. When seismic test data already exist for a motor
control center structure, seismic qualification can be demonstrated for a motor control center
of a similar design using a combination of analysis and testing. The guidance and require-
ments of Section 8 of IEEE Std 344-1987 [7] shall be followed when this approach is utilized.

10.5.3 Experience Analysis. Seismic qualification of MCCs may be accomplished by justi-

fying their similarity with previously qualified equipment or with equipment that has been
exposed to more severe seismic excitation. Similarity of the equipment characteristics and of
the excitation environment must be established by techniques that can be technically justi-
fied.
Experience data may be derived from a variety of sources. It may be
(1) Analysis or test data from previous qualification programs
(2) Documented data from equipment in facilities that have experienced earthquakes
(3) Data from operating dynamic loading or other dynamic environments

18
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

Depending on the source and level of documentation detail available, various approaches
are appropriate. The approach selected shall conform to the guidance in Section 9 of IEEE Std
344-1987 [7].
The Appendix provides information on research and methods that are available for addressing
seismic qualification of electrical equipment based on experience data.

10.6 Harsh Environment Events

10.6.1 General. Motor control center equipment is normally furnished for use in a mild
environment in which the seismic event is the design basis event of major concern. Under cer-
tain conditions, motor control center equipment is furnished for use in a harsh environment
where post-LOCA or HELB events are of major concern.
When equipment is furnished for use in a harsh environment, specified conditions such as
temperature, pressure, humidity, dust, and radiation shall be addressed in the qualification
program. For a given post-LOCA or HELB event, the conditions for which the motor control
center and its equipment must be qualified shall be included in the motor control center spec-
ification developed in accordance with Section 9. The acceptable methods for demonstrating
equipment capability for these events or conditions are testing, use of operating experience,
analysis, or any combination thereof.

10.6.2 Test Alternative. Under this alternative, it shall be demonstrated by test that MCC
equipment can meet or exceed its safety function requirements under the harsh environment
conditions specified in the equipment specification.
The test program performed shall be in accordance with the requirements of IEEE Std 323-
1983, section 6.3, and shall be done in the sequence shown in 6.2 of this standard. Factors to
be considered in the test program that are unique to motor control centers and their compo-
nents are listed below:

(1) Selection of MCC Equipment for Testing. Representative samples of equipment should
be chosen with attention given to thermally-sensitive devices such as breakers with
thermal trip units, fuses, and overload relays. Determination of derating factors for
these devices may be required if they must function at elevated temperatures for
extended periods of time. The manufacturers should be consulted in determining the
appropriate derating factors.
(2) MCC Enclosure Design. The MCC enclosure design tested must represent the installed
enclosure so that leakage into the MCC during the test duplicates the locations and
quantity of in-leakage that would occur in the actual installation. Particular attention
should be paid to the effects of door gaskets, louvers, and conduit penetrations. For
component qualification, components need not be tested inside MCC enclosures with
documented justification.
(3) Equipment Operation During Test. Equipment shall be operated under load during the
test as specified in the equipment specification. Operations should be sufficient to con-
firm conformance with the acceptance criteria in the equipment specification.
(4) Sequence of Harsh Environment Tests. The harsh environment testing that is required
by the qualification plan shall be performed in the following sequence after completion
of aging (if required) and seismic qualification:

(a) Radiation Test. If the radiation levels to which the equipment will be exposed dur-
ing the post-LOCA or HELB event are greater than those for which the equipment
was qualified in 10.4, then the test specimen shall be exposed to additional radia-
tion such that its total integrated dose exceeds the specified level by the required
margin.
(b) Temperature, Pressure, and Humidity Profile Test. The test profiles shown in Figs 1
and 2 of IEEE Std 323-1983 [6] provide acceptable methods of simulating postu-

19
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

lated environmental conditions while including margin. It should be recognized,

however, that other possibilities exist to address margin in the test profile.
Where it is impractical to test for the duration of the post-LOCA or HELB event,
a higher temperature may be maintained during the post-event temperature tran-
sient test so that a shorter test duration may be justified.

10.6.3 Operating Experience Alternative. This portion of the qualification program may
be satisfied by documented operating experience. If this option is followed, the guidance of
section 6.4 of IEEE Std 323-1983 [6] shall be followed.

10.6.4 Analysis Alternative. This portion of the qualification program may be satisfied by
using a mathematical or logical assessment to establish that the MCC and its equipment can
perform its safety function(s) when subjected to the specified service conditions. When this
alternative is selected, the guidance of section 6.5 of IEEE Std 323-1983 [6] shall be followed.

10.7 Final Functional Tests and Inspection. The test sample shall be subjected to final
functional tests to demonstrate post DBE operational capability if required by the equipment
specification. These tests shall be conducted at the assembled motor control center level or at
the individual device level, whichever is most appropriate.
The test sample shall be inspected after completion of the test program to identify any
areas of significant wear, aging degradation, or imminent failure, and the results shall be
recorded. The sample shall be disassembled to the extent necessary to perform a complete
inspection.

10.8 Determination of Qualification. In the evaluation of the qualification program

results, the MCC and its components are considered to have passed when they meet the
acceptance criteria specified in the equipment specification. Any failure to meet the accep-
tance criteria shall be analyzed to determine appropriate modification(s) of the equipment or
the limitation that shall be imposed on its use. Failures shall be documented as described in
12.2.4.
Failure during the qualification process does not mean that the equipment is disqualified
for its intended safety application if it can be demonstrated that the failure was not common
cause in nature or if the failure does not affect the motor control center’s safety functions.
When such demonstration is possible, the failed device or component may be replaced by a
similar, equivalently-aged device or component, and the qualification process may be contin-
ued or repeated, provided that the effect on interface connections can be shown to be insignif-
icant. Section 11 addresses modifications during the qualification program.
Common cause failures may be addressed either by design changes to eliminate the cause of
failure, by reducing the qualified life, or by specifying an appropriate component replacement
interval, all in conjunction with repeating part or all of the qualification process. A common
cause failure must be thoroughly analyzed and its resolution documented.
Continued qualification is based on adherence to specified service conditions, maintenance
schedules, and replacement schedules provided by the qualifier to maintain qualified life.

10.9 Extension of Qualified Life. When a motor control center, or its components, is ini-
tially qualified for a period shorter than the current qualified life objective, the methods
described in section 6.9 of IEEE Std 323-1983 [6] and [Link] of this standard may be used to
extend qualified life.

11. Modifications

11.1 Modifications During [Link] modification made to the equipment or to

the equipment specification after the start of the qualification program shall be evaluated to

20
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

determine its effect on the equipment qualification. This evaluation shall indicate whether or
not requalification is necessary.
Requalification is not necessary if the modification is fully justified and documented as

(1) Having no bearing on the validity of qualification tests or on the equipment qualifica-
tion process
(2) Being an equipment replacement, servicing, or adjustment that is included in a pre-
scribed maintenance program for that equipment

When the modification does effect equipment qualification, the change in equipment or
operating conditions shall be identified and recorded (materials of construction, lubricant,
clearances, dielectric stress levels, etc.), and the equipment shall be requalified with support-
ing justification. The extent of requalification necessary shall be based on the effects of the
modification on the equipment’s ability to perform its safety functions. Components of the
equipment that can be shown to be unaffected by the modification need not be requalified.

11.2 Modifications After Qualification. During the qualified life of the installed equip-
ment, additions or changes may become necessary. Such modifications to motor control cen-
ters require evaluation and may require requalification.
Devices that are added to the MCC after completion of qualification are to be qualified as a
component of the MCC in accordance with the requirements and procedures of this standard
or other applicable standards, and should be qualified to the requirements of the original test
plan. The addition of the new component shall be evaluated to determine if there is any
impact on the seismic qualification of the MCC as noted in [Link].

12. Documentation

12.1 General. The documentation shall be sufficient to provide justification that the motor
control center and its subcomponents can meet their specified safety functions for normal ser-
vice conditions, abnormal service conditions, design basis events, and post design basis
events. The documentation shall be presented in an organized and auditable form.

12.2 Equipment Qualification Data

12.2.1 Service Conditions. The documentation shall include a tabulation of all normal,
abnormal, DBE, and post-DBE specified service conditions, and the service conditions that the
equipment was qualified to.

12.2.2 Specific Features. Specific features that were demonstrated by the equipment qual-
ification program shall be identified.

12.2.3 Qualification Plan. The qualification plan shall contain sufficient details to identify
the acceptance criteria, describe the required procedures, and correlate the qualification
methods and results to the equipment specifications. The qualification plan shall contain the
following:

(1) Equipment specification (see Section 9)

(2) Number (quantity) of units to be tested
(3) Mounting, connection, and other interface requirements
(4) Aging simulation procedures, including the qualified life objectives
(5) Service conditions to be simulated
(6) Performance and environmental variables to be measured
(7) Test equipment requirements, including accuracies

21
IEEE
Std 649-1991 IEEE STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING CLASS 1E MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS

(8) Environmental, operating, and measurement sequence in step-by-step detail

(9) Acceptance criteria
(10) Type test data
(11) Statement of nonapplicable portions of the specification
(12) A description of any conditions peculiar to the motor control center and its subassem-
blies that are not covered above but that could effect the equipment during testing
(13) Method(s) for identification of significant aging mechanisms

12.2.4 Qualification Report. The qualification report shall contain the following:

(1) Qualification plan

(2) Objectives (acceptance criteria)
(3) Detailed description of equipment tested
(4) Test facility description and identification of instrumentation
(5) Test procedures
(6) Test data
(7) Required periodic maintenance, surveillance, and/or testing
(8) Evaluation of any component failure or abnormality encountered during the test
(9) Summary and conclusions, including qualified life statement
(10) Supporting documentation
(11) Approval, signature of the qualifier, and date

12.3 Supporting Documentation. Partial type tests of motor control centers that are aug-
mented by operating experience, analysis, extrapolation, or combinations thereof shall include
the following items.

12.3.1 Operating Experience Data

(1) Equipment specification (see Section 9)

(2) Interface and boundary conditions of the equipment
(3) Specification of equipment for which operating experience is available
(4) Identification of the specific features to be demonstrated using operating experiences
(5) Comparison of past application and specifications with the new equipment specifica-
tion for each feature identified in item (4) above
(6) Summary and source of operating experience applicable to equipment qualification
including maintenance/repair history, environmental conditions, electrical loadings
and seismic/vibrational loadings
(7) Basis on which the data have been determined to be suitable and the equipment quali-
fied
(8) Approval, signature of the qualifier, and date

12.3.2 Analysis

(1) Equipment specification (see Section 9)

(2) Interface boundary conditions of the equipment
(3) Specific features, postulated failure modes, or failure effects to be analyzed
(4) Assumptions, empirically derived values, and the mathematical models used together
with justification for their use
(5) Test data that supports the assumptions and mathematical models
(6) Description of analytical methods or computer programs used
(7) A summary of analytically established performance characteristics and their accept-
ability
(8) Approval, signature of the qualifier, and date

22
 IEEE
FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING STATIONS Std 649-1991

12.3.3 Extrapolation. When the test data or operating experience data have been extrapo-
lated, the basis and justification of the validity for the extrapolation shall be provided.

Appendix
Use of Experience Data in Seismic Qualification of
Motor Control Centers
(This appendix is not part of IEEE Std 649-l991, IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Motor Control Centers for
Nuclear Power Generating Stations, but is included for information only.)

Two types of seismic experience data have been collected for motor control centers as well
as other types of electrical equipment. The first type is data that has been assembled by
reviewing historic earthquake data and equipment that was exposed to actual earthquakes
for post-event damage and functionality. Much of this work was done by the Seismic Qualifica-
tion Utility Group (SQUG). The second type of experience data is based on the large amount of
information collected during seismic qualification testing of nuclear power plant equipment.
Information of the SQUG efforts and the review performed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is contained in the following:

Kennedy, R. P., et. al. “Use of Past Earthquake Experience Data to Show Seismic
Ruggedness of Certain Classes of Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants,” Senior Seis-
mic Review and Advisory Panel, Aug. 1985.

Change, T. Y. “Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Nuclear Power

Plants,” NUREG 1030, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1985.

Information on analyses of existing seismic qualification test data and potential methodol-
ogies for its use are contained in the following:

EPRI NP-4297, “Seismic Equipment Qualification Using Existing Test Data,” Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Oct. 1985.

EPRI NP-5223, “Generic Seismic Ruggedness of Power Plant Equipment,” Electric

Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, May 1987.

EPRI NP-5024, “Seismic Ruggedness of Aged Electrical Components,” Electric Power

Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Jan. 1987.

23