Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: c07843ce-fb70-4e28-ba72-7f6eaee2562d
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: Qualification of Continuous Duty Safety-Related Motors for Nuclear Power Plants + HISTORY - HISTORY DG-1150 , Proposed Revision 1, published 8/2009 (Rev. 1)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 1
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0912/ML091200454.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-1.40
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ear Power Generating Stations.” The NRC staff has previously endorsed the trial guide (IEEE Std 334-1971) in March 1973, as Regulatory Guide 1.40. However, over the ensuing years, the staff has been working with IEEE to revise this standard, and the revised version, IEEE Standard 334- 2006, is generally consistent with the NRC’s regulatory requirements. Since the issuance in 1971 of IEEE Standard 334-1971, nuclear power plant licensees have used either the 1971 standard or IEEE Standard 334-1994 for qualification of safety-related motors for nuclear power plants, subject to NRC staff review on a case-by-case basis. The case by case approach is time consuming. The use of a single, updated standard would enhance the review process. Objective DG-1150, Page 6 The objective of this action is to provide clear, updated guidance on qualification of safety-related motors. Issuing a regulatory guide is consistent with the NRC policy of evaluating the latest versions of consensus safety standards in terms of their suitability for endorsement by regulatory guides. This approach would also comply with the NRC’s directive to use standards developed by consensus bodies in accordance with Public Law 104-113, “National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.” Alternative Approaches The NRC staff considered the following alternative approaches: • Do not revise the regulatory guide endorsing IEEE standard 334-2006. • Revise the regulatory guide endorsing IEEE standard 334-2006. Alternative 1: Do Not Issue a Regulatory Guide Endorsing IEEE Standard 334-2006 Under this alternative, the NRC would not issue additional guidance, and the current ad hoc guidance for qualifying safety related motors would be retained. If NRC does not take action, there would not be any changes in costs or benefit to the public, licensees or NRC. However, the “no-action” alternative would not address identified concerns with the current lack of guidance. This alternative provides a