For well over four decades many of us have been drawing attention to the problems associated with traditional motor repair practices and their impact on operating costs, energy efficiency, reliability and other impacts on you, the user of the machines that can be subjected to some truly awful methods that have not changed in over a Century. Over the past year, it appears that attention is being brought to this issue by the US Department of Energy and US Environmental Protection Agency as well as environmental protection and energy lobbyists (industrial energy driven) and motor manufacturers due to the understanding of this impact. Several of us have been writing about this issue since the 1970s and many supporters, many in the motor repair industry in particular, have been ensuring that I receive information that I may miss. This is an exciting time to have returned after having fought for moving the motor repair industry out of the early 1900s methodologies that are still in practice today! The battles have been fast, furious, and on-going.
Things have been extremely busy this summer. With last summer and winter being mild and this season being much warmer, and that many companies are running to failure, it seems that one unplanned plant outage is being followed by the next. We have been firmly in the middle of such situations at Dreisilker from emergency repairs to field service support to even being contracted to oversee the repairs of machines at other motor repair shops. This started even the past two years resulting in such challenges as having to be extremely flexible (reactive) to customer requirements which has even had me cancel speaking engagements – not something that I enjoy doing. The good news is that observations on conditions and issues both support my past observations and are beginning to identify solutions, many of which I will be discussing in the future.
At this time, however, I get to discuss my ‘I told you so!’ experiences.
In a project I was involved in this year, I had to deal with an 8000 horsepower electric motor (actually, I have had to deal with a great many 8000 hp issues this year. I didn’t know there were so many!). In one case, it was communicated that the burnout (alternately the ‘burn-off’ process, or incinerator process) would have an impact of up to an increase of 50% in core losses by the equipment manufacturer IN HEAVILY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS with a core temperature not to exceed 670F (in new core steel)! As part of the review, we determined this would reduce the efficiency to 96.5% at full load costing an additional $22,000 per year and emitting an additional 123 Tons of CO2, alone, as well as other greenhouse gasses per year.
This condition came to mind after receiving multiple emails from associates in the motor repair industry concerning an Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) announcement and information from the motor repair trade association to oppose, or “in vehement opposition” to the air quality, energy and environmental regulations. The document was released on Friday, June 4, 2010, for review and opposing remarks by the US EPA under 40 CFR Part 60 entitled “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Proposed Rule,” where the US EPA emphasized that there would be less of an impact by the regulation on only 126 such burn-off ovens than land filling all such equipment for reconditioning. It was identified that the purpose for the opposition was that there are over 10,000 such units in the United States, alone, and that the average cost of compliance through modernizing equipment would be $146,777 per oven with an incremental annual cost of $88,861.
Not one mention of methods to reduce emissions, just opposition to altering operations to reduce emissions!
In the proposed letter to the US EPA that was sent to motor repair shop owners to oppose the rules, it even put in a bullet point to argue against alternate processes that have been proven in THIRD PARTY studies to not only maintain equipment condition with no increase in losses, but to also not be able to harm equipment EVEN WHEN OPERATED INCORRECTLY!! The process was also found to have virtually zero measureable emissions! (Cite: Canadian Electrical Association Motor Repair Study).
Yes folks, now for the details.
A few of the key points made by the US EPA proposed changes, which are being made because such equipment was held exempt for a number of reasons including lobbying. The US EPA has determined that such time is over and that these exemptions are having a direct impact on the environment. I will, of course, place a few editorial comments in between.
I suppose we should start with the US EPA’s question: “What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions and current controls.” It is noted that most motors are put into burn-off ovens without contaminants, oils, greases, etc. removed from the windings:
“… and burn-off ovens that combust residual materials off racks, parts, drums or hooks so that those items can be reused in various production processes.”
“Combustion of solid waste causes the release of a wide array of air pollutants, some of which exist in the waste feed materials and are released unchanged during combustion and some of which are generated as a result of the combustion process itself. These pollutants include particulate matter (PM); materials including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenxofurans (dioxin furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (Nox); and acid gasses, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).”
I would note that in the motor repair shops that I worked in and operated in Virginia in the early 1990s, the work areas had to be ‘clean’ due to the amount of particulate put out by the burn-off oven(s). In one case, the motor repair shop that I worked at in the low income area of Richmond, VA, would get complaints from the neighbors because of the amount of ash on their vehicles, gardens, windows, etc. This is one of the reasons I truly took up the torch for the method that I had and do use at Dreisilker Electric Motors and the forming of the Dreisilker R&D group.
Table: Findings and Average Existing Compared to Proposed Limits for Burn-off
Note: burn-off ovens were found to be some of the worst compared to such equipment as incinerators. Alternate repair processes DO EXIST.
Pollutants (Units) --- Existing --- Proposed
HCl (ppmv) --- 130 --- 18
CO (ppmv) --- 80 --- 74
Pb (mg/dscm) --- 0.041 --- 0.029
Cd (mg/dscm) --- 0.0045 --- 0.0032
Hg (mg/dscm) --- 0.014 --- 0.0033
PM Filterable (mg/dscm) --- 33 --- 28
Dioxin, furans, total (mg/dscm) --- 310 --- 0.011
Dioxin, furans, TEQ (mg/dscm) --- 25 --- 0.00086
NOx (ppmv) --- 120 --- 16
SO2 (ppmv) --- 11 --- 1.5
Opacity --- 2% --- 2%
(Opacity relating to the fact that you cannot see these gasses coming out of the stack. So, if you cannot see it, why the problem? Other than research that such emissions can trigger health problems including mercury and the other heavy metals and toxins being linked to the autism spectrum, cancer and other issues - http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_envirohealth_faq).
The above units are considered on the high side of emissions as compared to the equipment that has been previously regulated and burn-off ovens rate on the high side of the equipment that was under review by the proposal and report (note that you can contact me directly at howard@motordoc.com for a copy of the US EPA proposal).
Because of the findings of the US EPA: “… the proposed revisions to the CISWI rule would remove the exemptions for: agricultural waste incinerators; cyclonic barrel burners; cement kilns; rack, part and drum reclamation units (ie: burn-off ovens).”
“Existing incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, remote incinerators would have annual emissions testing for opacity, HCl and PM.” (Minor compared to other requirements).
“We have determined that most facilities with units in the incinerators, small remote incinerators or burn-off ovens subcategories will choose to cease operations once the proposed MACT floor limits are promulgated and that all units in these three subcategories will cease combusting waste if beyond-the-floor levels are adopted.”
To paraphrase the lengthy discussion that follows, it is the intention that the proposed regulations would cause these groups to utilize alternate means. These do exist, from mechanical stripping to water blasting, and other methods that have been found not to harm equipment through independent studies. I have heard arguments that the alternate methods are ‘more labor intensive’ or ‘potentially harmful,’ I have even heard a reference to a non-third party reviewed UK motor repair study stating that “it proves that the alternate methods harms motors,” when, in fact, the alternate processes were NEVER REVIEWED in that study. Talk about misrepresentation!! The times to perform the mechanical methods are the exact same in labor as burn-off ovens AND they are far shorter in LINEAR HOURS meaning that the length of time to return a repair is reduced often by a whole DAY! In fact, Dreisilker, who uses a mechanical stripping method and is one of the highest volume repair facilities in the USA, could not function effectively with the restrictions of burn-off oven process time! It turns out that the mechanical process is far more LEAN than incinerating piles of motors.
Burn-off ovens and cement kilns had previously been exempt but it was determined that many cement kilns would continue to be exempt but that it made more sense to remove the exemption from burn-off ovens.
“In fact, sources operating incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, remote incinerators where energy recovery is not a goal, may find it most cost effective to discontinue use of their CISWI unit altogether.”
The US EPA found it more beneficial (less environmental impact) to landfill materials rather than use burn-off ovens! That is a highly unique position for the US EPA to hold!
The US EPA felt that just turning off 126 burn-off ovens would have more of an environmental positive impact than if the waste from all of the burn-off ovens were land filled (over 10,000 units). The average cost of compliance, per the trade association proposed letter, would be $146,777 per oven and $88,861 in annual costs. The cost for alternate methods that have low to zero environmental impact, produce a faster turnaround for end-users, do not generate a motor repair half-life, operates a more lean repair process, and maintains end user energy costs following repair, would cost far less than that in an initial investment.
I am disturbed by such activity when warnings were being produced by multiple organizations since the 1960s (and before) related to energy and environment impact through traditional electric motor repair practices. The choice to fight change in an industry while all other industries are requiring to change to maintain competitiveness around them has been amazing. In fact, in an article I wrote many years ago discussing the changes in the industry, we ended up changing the position of the article citing how the industry HAS NOT CHANGED in over a CENTURY! Processes used in the repair of machines have not changed since the days that my Great Grandfather Henry Bulbrook and Grandfather Howard Bulbrook repaired motors during the turn of the 20th Century, in a few cases, the equipment used today being almost that old.
Shouldn’t it be time for the motor repair industry to move forward and improve to the benefit of the end user instead of fighting to maintain 100 years of traditional repair that does not benefit the environment, end user costs, or reliability of machines?
Go to http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the archive section for more articles on motor repair.
email a-and-r-docket@epa.gov with Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119 and tell them that you support the regulation on burn-off ovens!
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Impact of Motor Repair Practices Including Modern Standards
Electric motor repair has the potential to impact future motor life, energy efficiency and the environmental impact of the machine (electric motor, to be used interchangeably in this paper) even when meeting modern motor repair standards. In this paper we shall outline the impact of repair following repair standards versus traditional repair and relate both scenarios to Precision Motor Repair (PMR), or Reliability-Centered Motor Repair Practices (RCMRP). The outline of impacts will be based upon the allowable limits by standards, observations following traditional practices, the impacts measured through PMR, based upon three similar machines in which an IEEE 112 Method B (segregated loss) was performed. These evaluations will be based upon expectations of impact to new core steels in premium and energy efficient machines.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
Free Infraspection Institute Electrical and Motor Standard
Jim Seffrin of the Infraspection Institute has provided us the latest version of the “Standard for Infrared Inspection of Electrical Systems and Rotating Equipment,” with permission for SUCCESS by DESIGN to make available through the archive section of http://www.motordiagnostics.com (a $25 value).
For those wishing to purchase a copy of this standard or others published by the Infraspection Institute, the link is – http://store03.prostores.com/servlet/infraspectionstore/the-Infraspection-Standards/Categories
For those wishing to purchase a copy of this standard or others published by the Infraspection Institute, the link is – http://store03.prostores.com/servlet/infraspectionstore/the-Infraspection-Standards/Categories
Comparing IEEE 112 Method B to MotorMaster Plus
Abstract: The present version of the US Department of Energy’s MotorMaster Plus (MMPlus) software was released in 1995 with modifications related to reliability funded by Dreisilker Electric Motors, Inc., ALL-TEST Pro, and Pruftechnic, in 2000. In 1999, a study by the Washington State Energy Extension Center determined that the efficiency results from MMPlus were roughly equivalent to IEEE Std 112 Method B testing, the requirement by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct ’92). In this paper we will compare the findings of three of the same model number and manufacturer motors via IEEE Std 112 Method B to the findings of MMPlus and our independent observations.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Maintenance and Management Editorial - June 1, 2010
What is the impact of energy efficiency and reliability? Efficiency testing, what can it tell us about our machines? How did that Reliability Gives Voice to Autism event turn out? Where did the newsletter disappear to for the last month? (simple, the MotorDoc having a blast!)
A few questions which will be answered in this edition. And belly dancing!
But now, on to our editorial! Over the years I have discussed such things as ‘you are only as good as your worst vendor,’ and the impact of poor quality in relation to reliability and maintenance issues. Lately, I have seen a growing number of articles with people purporting to show how and why management does not pay as much attention to reliability and maintenance. I find many of the statements interesting from many of these articles as my functions have changed from R&M consultant and practitioner to what amounts to the chief operating officer of an organization. After a year of being in this position, one that I have been in a number of times, I can provide a slightly different perspective.
For one thing, R&M is a function of the business, an important function to meet the mission of the company, but a function none-the-less. The real question is how much focus should senior management or executives give it. The prevailing maintenance organization and consulting wisdom has been that we need to ‘convince’ senior management that a robust maintenance program is a requirement for success and a priority that senior manager must focus on. I say that direction will lose almost every time as with everyone else, the workload of most senior decision makers is much higher than in the past. Combine that with training and experience, and you have a recipe for disaster! What is obvious to those on the floor is viewed differently at the senior management level, and it must be that way.
What it comes to is perspective. The perspective of someone at ‘sea level’ is going to be drastically different than someone who must see things at 30,000 feet. The WIIFM (What’s In It For Me), or drive, is different at every level. In fact, the very type of thought process is different in that senior management must think strategically and the R&M business must think tactically, and there are few who can bounce back and forth between the two.
Even in the military, the captain of a vessel on mission, or combat, needs to have an overall strategic and tactical view of the mission and a feel for the vessel. If the captain needs to be concerned about the status of maintenance of his command then the command is sick. If sick enough, the results can be terminal. The same gives for business, if the CEO, president, or VP of a company must focus on the tactical condition of maintenance, then the maintenance organization is ill, possibly fatally so.
Now, what happens if the organization is ill when the leadership provides the resources and direction to enforce a maintenance program? Or the manager requests records and there are none because it was too inconvenient for maintenance personnel to complete paperwork? Should the manager have the perspective that maintenance is important when the organization that is responsible doesn’t take it seriously? Especially if there are catastrophic failures in meeting the mission and an investigation shows no evidence of maintenance?
What happens when the senior manager of a division provides direction but the responsible junior managers decide to take direction from the financial division without informing the responsible manager? When things go wrong, who is responsible? In virtually every management style book I have been privy to, if you have an area that requires constant attention, it must be repaired or changed, if detailed direction must be given to managers (leaders) and/or personnel in the functions of their position, they are not suited for that position.
By the same token, if senior management is not ‘aware’ of the maintenance program in an organization by knowing the status of equipment availability (what equipment is functioning) and capability from the 30,000 foot level, then the senior manager does not have the required perspective of the organization. However, in the haste of some to ‘prove’ the value of their organization, incorrect or false information may be provided. The challenge usually comes to light when the need for that capability is required and it does not exist. When this happens more than once, how can the manager trust the organization?
So, what do we do? At this point we provide ‘magic numbers’ and ‘maintenance KPIs.’ These may serve the tactical component of the organization, but what about the strategic? The challenge is to understand the difference.
In our next newsletter we are going to discuss the concepts and practices associated with strategic and tactical thinking.
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
howard@motordoc.com
A few questions which will be answered in this edition. And belly dancing!
But now, on to our editorial! Over the years I have discussed such things as ‘you are only as good as your worst vendor,’ and the impact of poor quality in relation to reliability and maintenance issues. Lately, I have seen a growing number of articles with people purporting to show how and why management does not pay as much attention to reliability and maintenance. I find many of the statements interesting from many of these articles as my functions have changed from R&M consultant and practitioner to what amounts to the chief operating officer of an organization. After a year of being in this position, one that I have been in a number of times, I can provide a slightly different perspective.
For one thing, R&M is a function of the business, an important function to meet the mission of the company, but a function none-the-less. The real question is how much focus should senior management or executives give it. The prevailing maintenance organization and consulting wisdom has been that we need to ‘convince’ senior management that a robust maintenance program is a requirement for success and a priority that senior manager must focus on. I say that direction will lose almost every time as with everyone else, the workload of most senior decision makers is much higher than in the past. Combine that with training and experience, and you have a recipe for disaster! What is obvious to those on the floor is viewed differently at the senior management level, and it must be that way.
What it comes to is perspective. The perspective of someone at ‘sea level’ is going to be drastically different than someone who must see things at 30,000 feet. The WIIFM (What’s In It For Me), or drive, is different at every level. In fact, the very type of thought process is different in that senior management must think strategically and the R&M business must think tactically, and there are few who can bounce back and forth between the two.
Even in the military, the captain of a vessel on mission, or combat, needs to have an overall strategic and tactical view of the mission and a feel for the vessel. If the captain needs to be concerned about the status of maintenance of his command then the command is sick. If sick enough, the results can be terminal. The same gives for business, if the CEO, president, or VP of a company must focus on the tactical condition of maintenance, then the maintenance organization is ill, possibly fatally so.
Now, what happens if the organization is ill when the leadership provides the resources and direction to enforce a maintenance program? Or the manager requests records and there are none because it was too inconvenient for maintenance personnel to complete paperwork? Should the manager have the perspective that maintenance is important when the organization that is responsible doesn’t take it seriously? Especially if there are catastrophic failures in meeting the mission and an investigation shows no evidence of maintenance?
What happens when the senior manager of a division provides direction but the responsible junior managers decide to take direction from the financial division without informing the responsible manager? When things go wrong, who is responsible? In virtually every management style book I have been privy to, if you have an area that requires constant attention, it must be repaired or changed, if detailed direction must be given to managers (leaders) and/or personnel in the functions of their position, they are not suited for that position.
By the same token, if senior management is not ‘aware’ of the maintenance program in an organization by knowing the status of equipment availability (what equipment is functioning) and capability from the 30,000 foot level, then the senior manager does not have the required perspective of the organization. However, in the haste of some to ‘prove’ the value of their organization, incorrect or false information may be provided. The challenge usually comes to light when the need for that capability is required and it does not exist. When this happens more than once, how can the manager trust the organization?
So, what do we do? At this point we provide ‘magic numbers’ and ‘maintenance KPIs.’ These may serve the tactical component of the organization, but what about the strategic? The challenge is to understand the difference.
In our next newsletter we are going to discuss the concepts and practices associated with strategic and tactical thinking.
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
howard@motordoc.com
Impact of Motor Repair Practices Including Modern Standards
Electric motor repair has the potential to impact future motor life, energy efficiency and the environmental impact of the machine (electric motor, to be used interchangeably in this paper) even when meeting modern motor repair standards. In this paper we shall outline the impact of repair following repair standards versus traditional repair and relate both scenarios to Precision Motor Repair (PMR), or Reliability-Centered Motor Repair Practices (RCMRP). The outline of impacts will be based upon the allowable limits by standards, observations following traditional practices, the impacts measured through PMR, based upon three similar machines in which an IEEE 112 Method B (segregated loss) was performed. These evaluations will be based upon expectations of impact to new core steels in premium and energy efficient machines.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
For more information, download the complete paper at http://www.motordiagnostics.com in the paper archives.
Report from Reliability Gives Voice to Autism at MARTs
The Reliability Gives Voice to Autism event went off extremely well on the evening of April 27, 2010 with about 100 reliability professionals, Autism Society of Illinois president and officers, and others in attendance. The SUCCESS by DESIGN event to celebrate the 2009 book awards received by Dr. Penrose (Axiom Business Book Award for ‘Physical Asset Management for the Executive,’ and the Foreword Book of the Year Award for ‘Electrical Motor Diagnostics: 2nd Edition’) was sponsored by Allied/GP Allied, Paragon Technologies, Maintenance Technology Magazine (through MARTS), and LuvBunny Confections. The reception and dinner was serenaded by the guitarists from the Guitars of Spain with sponsorship plaques being presented and a ten minute talk about his personal experience with his eight year old daughter’s autism challenge, Ken Arthur of GP Allied stirred the emotions of many in the audience.
The main speaker, Bob Miller, of IVC Technologies spoke for 45 minutes about his experience and what he learned concerning autism first hand. The presentation was illustrated by his autistic daughter. In general, the audience expressed that they learned a lot about autism and the spectrum of the affliction. Following Bob was a brief intermission as the belly dancers Gabriela Galvez, Tami Weeks-Pryor and Joanne Kucenski Wessels had a ‘wardrobe malfunction.’ Once repaired, they put on a seven minute demonstration. The video can be seen on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8XUEsIqjF4). During the break books were available with 100% of the books sales going to the Autism Society of Illinois (over $3400 in book sales was raised!).
Following the dancers came the full flamenco group, The Guitars of Spain, who put on another 45 minutes of music and entertainment. The one hour video can be downloaded (758MB: http://www.motordoc.com/autism/ReliabilityAutism.wmv) .
At the conclusion of the evening door prizes were handed out which included a blueray player donated by SUCCESS by DESIGN, a Sony video camera donated by SUCCESS by DESIGN, an Acer 120GB, 10 hr battery, Netbook by SUCCESS by DESIGN, several large candy baskets by LuvBunny Confections, and belly dance lessons from Tami Weeks Pryor.
Overall a great evening with over $7,000 raised for ASI after direct expenses. Dr. Penrose was invited to serve on the ASI Board of Directors following the success of the event and industry participants and sponsors requested that this event be tagged as a ‘first annual.’ If so, announcements will be made following the lessons learned meetings this summer. Contact Dr. Penrose at howard@motordoc.com if you are interested in participating in 2011.
The main speaker, Bob Miller, of IVC Technologies spoke for 45 minutes about his experience and what he learned concerning autism first hand. The presentation was illustrated by his autistic daughter. In general, the audience expressed that they learned a lot about autism and the spectrum of the affliction. Following Bob was a brief intermission as the belly dancers Gabriela Galvez, Tami Weeks-Pryor and Joanne Kucenski Wessels had a ‘wardrobe malfunction.’ Once repaired, they put on a seven minute demonstration. The video can be seen on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8XUEsIqjF4). During the break books were available with 100% of the books sales going to the Autism Society of Illinois (over $3400 in book sales was raised!).
Following the dancers came the full flamenco group, The Guitars of Spain, who put on another 45 minutes of music and entertainment. The one hour video can be downloaded (758MB: http://www.motordoc.com/autism/ReliabilityAutism.wmv) .
At the conclusion of the evening door prizes were handed out which included a blueray player donated by SUCCESS by DESIGN, a Sony video camera donated by SUCCESS by DESIGN, an Acer 120GB, 10 hr battery, Netbook by SUCCESS by DESIGN, several large candy baskets by LuvBunny Confections, and belly dance lessons from Tami Weeks Pryor.
Overall a great evening with over $7,000 raised for ASI after direct expenses. Dr. Penrose was invited to serve on the ASI Board of Directors following the success of the event and industry participants and sponsors requested that this event be tagged as a ‘first annual.’ If so, announcements will be made following the lessons learned meetings this summer. Contact Dr. Penrose at howard@motordoc.com if you are interested in participating in 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
