In this editorial: some stuff on business, SMRP, and electric motor industry stuff that will impact you and how you manage your motors!

On the road again! (now, that song will stick in your head) Travel can be interesting, in particular, both air and road travel. I am back to a significant amount of both at the moment. The good news is that the increase in travel and the types of related projects go along with the type of work that was seen prior to the economic downturn. Of course, suring this period, it is almost as if a reset button has been pushed and some new players have entered this scene.

Basically, layoffs and early retirements are noticeable in many of the business environments. New vaces have entered the scene, people are working leaner and companies have transitional out significant knowledge. We are noticing, however, that many of the newer people in the industry are a little more tech savvy using the internet and technology more to obtain and share information through social networking. There is an effort by a growing number of companies to become more involved in organizations such as SMRP (Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals – http://www.SMRP.org) and local chapters, as well as hiring reliability engineers in order to develop optimized maintenance organizations.

The transition appears to be going relatively smoothly, moreso than many expected, even with fewer people. This goes along with similar transitions that occurred in the early 1900s, mid-1900s, and now. Social and business upheaval has not finished as unemployment remains high and inventories, in particular MRO inventory, is either kept very low or is non-existent. There is, or course, the issues that go along with lower production levels returning to normal levels and problems with machines that have either been operating at lower loads or on mothballs with limited maintenance.

A few new issues for the industry are looming on the horizon such as the EISA (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) and the potential Crush for Credit program. Another issue that may impact the repair industry is the US EPA ruling on small incinerators (US Environmental Proection Agency 40 CFR Part 60: Standards for Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Proposed Rule) which will impact burn off ovens. This means that there is the potential for major changes in the electric motor manufacturing and repair industries.

The impact of the EISA is that the motors covered under the EPAct 92 (Energy Policy Act of 1992), which covered integral, foot mounted, general purpose 1200 to 3600 RPM motors from 1 to 250 horsepower, that were elevated to energy efficient levels by October 24, 1997, are now required to be manufactured (as of December 19, 2010) to premium efficient levels. Motors from over 250 horsepower to 500 horsepower are required to be energy efficient including U-frame and specialty motors that were previously not covered. This also means a cost premium on the motors that will change some of the repair versus replace decisions that many companies make.

If the Crush for Credit program is implemented, a $25 per horsepower incentive would be provided, as presently written, for upgrading existing motors to premium efficient motors. A $5 per horsepower credit would e provided to repair centers and mtoor sellers to scrap the existing machine. With present political issues, the program has been put on hold. However, the impact on the motor industry would be on the repair side where it is projected that motors to 500 or 1,000 horsepower would no longer be cost effective to repair. The impact would be significant to smaller repair facilities as it is expected to be extended across a four year period.

The EPA ruling on the small incinerators will effect motor repair facilities. In the present draft there will be a significant increase in costs to maintain ovens to reduce emissions and controls to ensure the emissions and materials do not exceed specific levels. The EPA explicitly states that the purpose is to make it cost prohibitive to operate burnout ovens due to negative impacts on environment and health (not just impacting workers but companies and homes within 1-2 miles). This would require these companies to explore other means of repair, such as mechanical stripping or water blasting, which have been shown to have near-zero impact on the environment and on changing motor efficiency.

The impact of motor efficiency through high temperature stripping has a long term effect on the motor owner where there is an increase in energy consumption (kW) that increases the greenhouse gas footprint of these companies. While tight quality control of the repair process will significantly reduce the impact, it will not eliminate it. However, processes such as mechanical stripping along with quality control and best repair practices have been proven to have no impact on motor efficiency.

NOTE: I have heard the – “but we were told there was a study in the UK that says burnout ovens have no impact on efficiency.” I would note that the same people involved in that study also pushed for the 20% allowable increase in core losses through the repair process in IEEE Std 1068-2009, “IEEE Standard for the Repair and Rewinding of AC Electric Motors in the Petroleum, Chemical, and Process Industries.” Core losses are an average of 25% of the losses in a motor meaning that, by definition, a 20% increase in cores losses relates to a significant increase in efficiency. See Plant Engineering article “Don’t Allow Motor Repair Practices to Degrade Motor Efficiency:” http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2010/12MotorRepairPractices.html?DCMP=PSE_Article_MotorRepair_101202