Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

1

Cascade Protection with Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors (TVSS) in Variable Speed Drive for Electro-Submergible Pumps
Frank Bustamante, BAKER ENERGY and Luis Viloria, SUGELCA, Venezuela Jeff Edwards and Juan Chavez, Energy Control Systems, USA Andrea Haa, Surge Suppression Incorporated, USA Juan Biternas and Jesus Borjas, CHEVRON, Venezuela
AbstractEvery year in the BOSCAN oil fields, operated by Chevron, there are significant losses of oil production, due to damages found in electronic components mainly after severe electrical storms. The Variable Speed Drives which are feeding the electro-submergible pumps are found to be most susceptible to failures of this nature. With the purpose of decreasing these failures, we considered the IEEE approach to facility protection and the potential application for Variable Speed Drives, doing a series installation of Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors (TVSS) at different key points inside the Drives. The cascade scheme for the protection of Variable Speed Drives was devised, performed and validated in laboratory tests performed in the USA. This cascade protection scheme is currently being implemented and monitored in sixty wells of the BOSCAN field. This paper documents the criteria considered, the methodology implemented and the tests performed to validate cascade protection for variable speed drives.
Index Terms Electro Submersible Pump, Failure Analysis, Lightning, Surges, Metal Oxide Varistor, Surge Suppression Device, Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor, Variable Speed Drive.

I. NOMENCLATURE BPD: TVSS: SPD: VSD: MOV: ESP: Barrels per Day Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor Surge Suppression Device Variable Speed Drive Metal Oxide Varistor Electro Submersible Pump

Financial support should be acknowledgle: This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Commerce under Grant BS123. The paper title should be in uppercase and lowercase letters, not all uppercase. The name and affiliation (including city and country) of each author must appear on the paper. Full names of authors are preferred in the author line, but are not required. Initials are used in the affiliation footnotes (see below). Put a space between authors' initials. Do not use all uppercase for authors' surnames. Examples of affiliation footnotes: J. W. is with Nebraska Public Power, District Hastings, NE 68902 USA (e-mail: j.hagge@ieee.org).L. Grigsby is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Auburn AL 36849 USA (e-mail: l.grigsby@ieee.org).

ightning has been the nemesis of electrical and electronic equipment since the time of Benjamin Franklin. Numerous papers have been published over the years as to the need to and the methodology of protecting from the damaging effects of lightning strikes or the prevention of them striking any particular facility. This is all with very good reason. The potential current discharge of more than 60% of lightning strokes will exceed 28,000 amps of current (to a high in excess of 200,000 amps) and 100,000 volts. On any typical day, there could be as many as 2000 thunderstorms and eight million lightning strikes occurring. Fig. 1 shows the potential distribution of energy after a lightning stroke hits a distribution line with a possible 100 kA impulse; it is estimated [1] that about 30 kA of lightning current enters into a facility. With this in mind lightning protection systems have been designed with a variety of kA ratings for the dissipation of this potential amount of energy and greater. However, while this electrical anomaly is an area of concern to be addressed in this paper; it is only part of the problem facing electronic equipment specifically Variable Speed Drives. Of equal concern is the residual effect of lightning strikes after the initial arrestor/suppressor has acted. The Variable Speed Drives in use today are a hybrid complex array of electrical parts and microprocessor electronics operating at voltages ranging from 12vdc to 480vac. Equating the VSD system, if you will, to the typical industrial facility anywhere in the world spawned the concept for this paper. In an effort to reduce the possible damaging effects of a direct or indirect lightning strike, we examined the use of cascaded TVSS protection within the context of a VSD cabinet in the same manner as the use of cascaded TVSS protection within an industrial facility.

II. INTRODUCTION

Longitude= -72.02. The smallest area of the NASA database is represented by a deviation of 0.5 degree around a central point, that is, an area of 100 km x 100 km. In the case of Campo Boscan, the central pre-determined point is Latitude 10.5 and Longitude -72 which corresponds to the location of station 14. In Fig. 2, the area under study and the coordinates are shown:

Fig.1 Dispersion of lightning current among multiple paths.

III. BOSCAN FIELD CONTEXT Boscan Field is located 40 kilometers southwest (25 miles) of Maracaibo City in farm lands located in western Venezuela. The Boscan operations involve a significant number of wells that pump heavy crude oil using several different methods. One of the biggest pumping units in the world is used due to the crude oil weight and the depth involved. The current potential production of the Boscan Field is more than 115,000 BPD, occupies a total area of 731 km2 with 467 wells in production. 440 wells are fed through the Chevron electrical system and the remainder is fed by the local electric utility or by other sources of power such as natural gas. The energy of 40 MWH per month, is used to operate 433 electrical wells, 123 electro-submersible pumps, 133 progressive cavity pumps and 117 beam pumps with Variable Speed Drives and 177 beam pumps that have 65/150 HP motors with 2 speeds and direct start. Consequently, 80% of the wells are operated by electronic technology, which makes them susceptible to voltage transients and lightning events. IV. POWER QUALITY ISSUES A. Surge problems As evidenced in the statistics, there is an intense isokeraunic activity in the area of Campo Boscan. This lightning activity is confirmed against the database available on the NASA WEB which through the project satellites Lightning Image Sensor (LIS), it is possible to obtain with a high degree of reliability, the amount of cloud-cloud and/or cloud-earth lightning within a specific geographical area. Campo Boscan has an approximate extension of 73.000 Ha (731 km2); its center, Zulia 9 Station, has the following coordinates: UTM 9 (N:1150000, E: 170000), which correspond to the geographical coordinates Latitude= 10.39 y
Fig. 2 Campo Boscan area according to NASA

Once the area is determined, the lighting activity since the year 2001 is downloaded; the graphic is shown in Fig. 3:
Events 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
events 2001 1452 2002 2240 2003 3049 2004 2133 2005 3356

Fig 3. Statistics for atmospheric events in Campo Boscan during the 2004-2005

It can be observed that 2005 has been the year with more lightning activity, with a balance of 3356 atmospheric events, almost twice compared to the lightning activity in the 2004 (2133 events) Another source of information available is the statistics kept by EDELCA Company [2], which reveals that the lightning discharge density in the area of Campo Boscan averages 8 lightning/km2/year, as shown in Fig. 4 It has been observed and documented that after a lightning storm, many of the variable speed drives fail due to damage sustained in the electronic boards. Every year, the VSD repair and maintenance cost to the corporation continues to increase and correspondingly the company has lost a large amount of oil production.

3 TABLE I CATEGORY OF TEST WAVE SHAPES ACCORDING TO ANSI/IEEE C62.41


Standard 0,5 s-100 kHz Ring Wave Voltage and Current Surges Expected in Location Categories A and B Low, Medium and High Exposures Single-Phase Modes: L-N, L-G and [L&N]-G and Polyphase Modes: L-L, L-G, and [Ls]-G

Location Category A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3

System Exposure Low Medium High Low Medium High

Peak Values Voltage Current (kV) (kA) 2 0,07 4 0,13 6 0,2 2 0,17 4 0,33 6 0,6

Effective Impedance () 30 30 30 12 12 12

Fig. 4 Annual density of discharges to earth in Venezuela

Standard 1,2/50 s- 8/20 s Combination Wave Voltage and Current Surges Expected in Location Categories B and C Low, Medium and High Exposures Single-Phase Modes: L-N, L-G and [L&N]-G and Polyphase Modes: L-L, LG, and [Ls]-G

B. Surges in Low Voltage According to IEEE Standard C62.41-2002 ([1] and [4]) there are three main categories of surges with three exposure levels within each category that can be obtained in low voltage installations Category C3: Transients of 20 kV and 10 kA, at the entrance of the main service panel. Category B3: Transients of 6 KV and 3 kA in the major feeders and short branch circuits, normally closer than 20 meters from main entrance. Category A1: Transients of 2 kV and 67 A, at farther than 20 meters from main service entrance, typically these locations are point of use applications of 120 VAC. In Fig. 5, categories are summarized:
Inlets and long circuits Farther than 20 mt from entrance Wires 10- 14 Engine feeders and short branch circuits Closer than 20 mt from entrance

Location Category B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3

System Exposure Low Medium High Low Medium High

Voltage (kV) 2 4 6 6 10 20

Current (kA) 1 2 3 3 5 10

Impedance () 2 2 2 2 2 2

In [3], cascade protection is recommended as the best protection method when there are installations with electronic equipment and communications. Fig. 6 shows what regulation IEEE points out:

Main Service Source

Fig 6 Cascade protection according to IEEE 1100 (1999)

Fig 5: Categories of overvoltage according to IEEE

In Table I, a summary of the categories is shown:

The principle of the cascade protection scheme relies on the fact that the primary service entrance device first line of defense unit will absorb and dissipate the bulk of the transient energy and the residual voltage/current will flow downstream to the second and third level devices. In a lightning type of surge event this residual voltage may be several thousand volts, depending on the design characteristics of the TVSS and the method of installation. If another TVSS is connected in the electrical system as in a secondary distribution panel, the residual surge of the primary unit is reduced significantly, and so on, until the resulting surge activity and resulting damage threat is virtually eliminated and the impulse is below the equipment nominal voltage. The hypothesis is that this concept of cascade protection can and should be applied to VSDs in order to obtain

maximum protection of the most sensitive electronic components within the drive cabinet at a reasonable cost. In our test scenario each TVSS manufacturer selected would submit its equipment to tests according to the standard wave shapes as recommended by [1] and to log the residual or letthrough voltages at each stage. In Campo Boscan, in order to determine what the best selection of TVSS would be, the residual voltages have been assessed, from which the following Fig. 7 with the correspondent summary graph was obtained:
20 kV 20 kV 10 kA

6 kV

2390 V (Brand 1)

2 kV
1395 V (Brand 3)

1490 V

when a severe discharge occurs, the internal MOV shortcircuits and allows the current flow to drain through the MOV, often failing in a dramatic and catastrophic manner, releasing the energy through the TVSS circuit board, having no other way of dissipation. In addition, of the 123 electro-submergible wells in this study, 58 have a TVSS installed as a primary means of defense. Most significant to note is that in 33 of these installations additional downstream damage occurred in the VSDs during the first 8 months of 2005. One other critical detail observed is that the connection from these TVSS to the main bar is 200 centimeter long, instead of the recommended 15 centimeters. This contributes to the high levels of residual voltage. ( in excess of 5 kV). The TVSS selected is the one that has the lowest remaining voltage and has double protection: a thermal fuse that opens with over-temperature and over-current fuses that clear the failure when severe discharges occur. When performing an economical analysis of the investment versus the impact, the result obtained is that such investment is paid in 2.3 years or less, making the project profitable. (Fig. 9)
2005 2006 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

895 V
600 V ac

ID
280 V 62 V

Task Name
Oct Nov

1 2 3

Laboratory Test Material Requisition Full instalation in 60 ESP (5 TVSS) Instalation others 62 ESP (4 TVSS) Evaluation

Categoria C

Categoria B

Categoria A

Fig 7 . Installation Coordination for different brands of TVSS

4 5

In the graph above, the coordination of installation for the different categories is shown; the cascade protection can be observed. The most adequate equipment, according to Chevrons interests, is the one that allows the least residual voltage flow. In addition to the electrical parameters and the lowest residual voltages, the safety aspect is very important. In the last year, four cases of TVSS dramatic blow ups have been recorded, with no harm to people, but with high risks of severe equipment damage. In the pictures of the Fig. 8, these catastrophic damages are shown:

Fig. 9. Execution Schedule

The implementation plan in the first phase, considers the installation only in ESP wells, according to the schedule shown below; this requires lab tests in order to certify the theoretical values of remaining voltages for the three manufacturers used in Campo Boscan V.
METHODOLOGY

Fig. 8. Appearance of a TVSS when fails catastrophically.

The explosions of these TVSS happened as a consequence of the lack of protection against over-current. Briefly stated

Given the fact that even though primary first defense protection had been in place on 33 of the wells that had experienced additional downstream failures, consideration must be given on the methodology of implementing Surge Protective Devices (SPD)s to obtain the desired result of fewer in field failures of Variable Speed Drives and achieve a corresponding increase in uptime production percentage. In the early 1980s a philosophy of protection began to surface among suppliers of SPD devices that can be most accurately described as a cascade or systems approach to the application of devices. It was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that the engineering community began to give serious consideration to this theory so much so that it was officially written into the IEEE Emerald Book Std. 11001992. While quite obviously we are not dealing with a

commercial / industrial structure, we are dealing with layers or levels of protection within a complex piece of equipment with electrical and electronic components both of which are adversely affected by transient surges and lighting related incidents. In our scenario the primary 480 volt three phase power drop to the drive would be considered as our service entrance in the cascade scheme (Fig. 10). The secondary level of protection needed was at the critical juncture of 480 volt three phase feed to the inverter -rectifier section of the drive and the third level of protection would be the secondary side of the 480/120 control transformer feeding microprocessor drive controls.
24 KV- 480 V 3 X 167.5 KVA TVSS 1 480 V/ 480 V Y VSD CENTRILIFT ICM 480 V 240/120 V TVSS 2
VARIATOR ELECTRONIC

documented properly. Tests on three TVSS manufacturers devices were performed: Brand 1, used in the CENTRILIFT VSD Brand 2, used in the TOSHIBA VSD Brand 3, new technology to be tested A. Assessment Criteria Two units per manufacturers were tested Line to line and line to phase impulses were applied All units were tested with category A1, B3 and C3 waveforms Units were tested with 15 cm ( 6 inch ) wires Cascade protection connection was implemented and tested.

TVSS 3 120 V

B. Generators used in tests Impulse wave generator equipment in categories A and B


24 V 24 V 12 V

120 V 15 m

RADIO RADIO UNIT (RTU) 480 V 2300 V

M
Fig 10. Typical diagram of a VSD in ESP

Fig 11: Generator and oscilloscope used for Category A1 and B3 waveform tests

Impulse wave generator equipment Category C Three different brands of suppression devices utilizing separate similar yet distinct designs were chosen in order to evaluate the theory. The technology of Brand 1 was a single component design. The technology of Brand 2 was hybrid network full encapsulant type technology. The technology of Brand 3 was hybrid network conformal encapsulant board level current fusing and individual component level thermal fusing. The objective desired in the laboratory was to simulate as closely as possible the field set up of a typical variable speed drive and RTU cabinet, utilizing the industry accepted test criteria contained in [3] recommended practices standards. However, we would implement a single Category C3 impulse into our cascade approach test utilizing 3 levels of SPDs with approximately 1.5 meters of wire between Level 1 and Level 2 and then approximately 20 feet of wire between Level 2 and Level 3. VI. LABORATORY TEST In order to certify the values provided by the manufacturers in relation to the remaining voltages, laboratory tests were performed at Surge Suppression Incorporated, located in Brooksville, USA. Tests were performed on October 12th and 13th, 2005 [5]. All test equipment was calibrated and

Fig 12: Generator used for Category C3 tests C.

Test results Each device tested was a three phase 480 volt unit and was tested in accordance with the industry accepted wave forms previously mentioned, no AC sinewave was present. One additional facet of each test was to evaluate the units with respect to actual installed conditions and in our scenario this was approximately six inches of #10awg wire. Each unit was

tested separately, applying every voltage category, line to line and line to ground, and the data recorded on the appropriate test report forms developed for this occasion. Some of the results are shown below in Table II
TABLE II TEST RESULTS (VOLTS) Cat. C3 L-L Brand 1 2410 Brand 2 3540 Brand 3 2240 Cat. B3/C1 L-L Brand 1 1507 Brand 2 2570 Brand 3 1292

20 kV

6 kV Brand 2 3540 V 2600 V


2410 V (Brand 1)

L-G 2580 2190 2160 L-G 1647 1460 1331

2480 V

2 kV
2300 V (Brand 3)

1507 V 1333 V

Fig. 13 Below are the graphical results of the C62.41 testing conducted on the units supplied for the test.

1164 V
480 V ac

25 V

Category C

Category B

Category A

Fig. 14: Installation coordination as a result of lab tests

D. Cascade implementation The experiment set up looked like this (Fig. 15):

Fig. 13: Shapes of typical waves as a result of tests

Fig. 15 Photo showing one of the simulated cascade protection plans in the laboratory

The summary of the three categories applied to the different manufacturers is shown below (Fig. 14). This test is between phase A and B (line to line). It can be seen that the best equipment is Brand 3 because it is the one with the least remaining voltage and provides both thermal and overcurrent protection.

At the Category C3 generator we connected the unit under test with 6 inches of lead length along with appropriate fusing for the primary device under evaluation; this is Level 1 as seen in Fig. 15. From this point we connected approximately 1.5 meters of #10 awg wire to simulate the approximate distance within the VFD to the secondary level of protection of the invertors or Level 2 as noted in Fig. 16. At this point we added an additional 20 feet of wiring to simulate the distance to the third area of the VFD requiring protection due to damage suffered and connected. This is labeled Level 3 in Fig. 16. The C3 surge generator released the impulse (20 kV/ 10 kA 8/20 us) into the Level 1 unit and the residual voltage traveled

down the 5 feet of wire to the Level 2 unit and then the remaining residual voltage traveled to the Level 3 unit where it was captured by the Lecroy 9310CM oscilloscope. The result of the test is shown graphically in Fig. 16, which shows that the remaining voltage at the end of the implementation in cascade is 25 V (below 120 V, (when input as a Category A1 ring wave after passing through a 480/120 transformer) which is the nominal tension at this level).
TVSS 1 Main Unit (External) 480 V TVSS 2 Second Unit (Internal) 480 V TVSSS 3 Third Unit (internal) 120 V

TABLE III BRAND 3 TESTED WITH 30 AMP RK5 FUSING IN LINE. Cat. C3 Brand 1 Cat C3/B1 Brand 1 L-G 3090 1933 L-L 3530 1924

VII. SAFETY ASPECTS To prevent from catastrophic failures in equipment, shown in Fig. 8, it is recommended that the TVSS equipment to be used have double protection, in this case a thermal fuse and an over current fuse. When utilizing the Brand 3 device, the LED operational indicators are designed in such a manner as to turn off in the event of the component failure indicating equipment should be replaced. The possibility of catastrophic failure possibly resulting in harm to personnel or connected equipment is dramatically reduced. Therefore, the use of this type of device for the highest degree of safety is recommended. VIII. CONCLUSION The history of electronic board failures within VFDs located in the Chevron Boscan field location and the need to reduce expenses and increase production necessitated the investigation into possible causes and solutions. While the practice of utilizing TVSS devices in these applications is undisputed and oftentimes required, the original protection scheme used was apparently not sufficient to maintain acceptable levels of production and maintenance. The consideration of cascade protection for VFDs was investigated as to the viability of providing an adequate operating electrical environment for sensitive electronics. The testing and evaluation of three TVSS designs and the corresponding installation coordination within the VFD supports the fact that, specifically in high lightning prone areas, a single device is insufficient and that cascade protection can and will provide a more stable electrical environment. IX. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to also thank test engineer Ricky Fussell for his tireless efforts in the endless test scenarios requested in the evaluation of the various devices and cascade protection scenarios. X. REFERENCES
IEEE Guide On The Surge Environment in Low Voltage (1000 V And Less) AC Power Circuits. IEEE Standard C62.41.1-2002, Nov. 2002 [2] CVG-EDELCA. Mapa anual de densidad de descargas a tierra Gerencia de Gestin Ambiental. Sistema de deteccin y localizacin de descargas elctricas atmosfricas [3] IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Electronic Equipment. IEEE Standard 1100-1999. March 1999. [4] IEEE Recommended practice on the characterization on surges in Low voltage (1000 V And Less) AC Power Circuits. C62.41.2-2002. . Mar. 2003 [5] Energy Control Systems. SineTamer. TVSS Test Report. Oct. 2005 [1]

20 kV 10 KA Category C

2300 V 3 feet Lead

1333 V 20 feet Lead

25 V

Fig. 16 Summary of the test in cascade in the laboratory

Additional cascade protection scenarios were tested utilizing a combination of the Brands in Levels 1 and 2. Testing Brand 1 at Level 1 and 2 with appropriate fusing we found residual voltage levels of L-G voltage of 3090 volts and 2008 volts. Brand 3 units were tested at Levels 1 and 2 with the resulting residual voltages of 2290 and 1333 respectively. E. Influence of the length of the connection wire tested The current condition of the 58 TVSS installed in the ESP Drives equipment has been tested. They have a 1.5 mt (60 inch) connection wire instead of the 6 inches recommended. The result showed that in category C, the remaining voltage with the 1.5 mt wire is 5230 V instead of 2290 V between phases. This could quite possibly be a contributing factor to the damages that can still be found in the electrical components, even though a TVSS is installed. F. Influence of the addition of protection fuses tested Industry accepted and National Electrical Code supported installation practices of SPDs call for connection to an appropriately rated breaker and or fuse block in order to safely disconnect the device from the electrical system should a short circuit or similar situation occur within the unit. Noted in particular was the design of Brand 3 with component level thermal fusing and board level current fusing, thus enabling the device to be connected directly to the electrical bus. Brand 2 makes the claim of this practice; however this test situation was not designed to substantiate or refute such claims. Three fuses were installed to the Brand 1 equipment, 30 Amp each, to simulate what happens when over-current protection is added. The test showed that in Category C the remaining tension increases from 2580V (without fuses) to 3090 V (with fuses), indicating that the over-current protection would result in an additional 500 Volts in the residual voltage that the TVSS lets through.

XI. BIOGRAPHIES
Frank Bustamante was born in Tovar, Merida, Venezuela. He is graduated as Electrical Engineer in Universidad de Los Andes in 1989. In 1998, He obtained a Master Degree in power System at UNEXPO, Venezuela. From 1989 has been worked in Oil & Gas Industrial Companies as a Maintenance and Advisor Engineer. He had written some technical documents and paper related to Surges and Lightning, and had been participated an some congress, seminars and Forums as a presenter. Actually he works for Chevron since 2005. E-mail: frankbusta@gmail.com Luis Viloria was born in Madison, Wisconsin, USA in April of 1965. He is a graduate of Universidad del Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela, in Electrical Engineering. His career experience includes Project Design for the Oil and Gas Industry for more than 12 years. Also has experience in Energy Backup and Power Quality Systems as Sales and Technical Support Executive, working for Sugelca and Sinetamer Venezuela. He has provided several energy quality solutions, based on TVSS protection, for the Oil and Gas Industry, and Telecommunication companies.

Protective Device IEC Standards. Andi serves as Director of Quality and Standards for Surge Suppression Incorporated.

Juan Biternas was born in CARACAS, Venezuela. He is graduated as Electrical Engineer in Universidad RAFEL URDANETA in 1989. In 1993, He has graduated as mechanical Eng at EMP, Greece. From 1989 has been working in Oil, Textile, petrochemicals & Gas Industrial Companies as a Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Advisor Engineer. He has participated in several congresses, seminars and Forums as a presenter. Actually he works for Chevron, Campo Boscan since 2001. Jess Borjas was born in Cabimas, Zulia Venezuela. He is graduated as Electrical Engineer in Universidad Rafael Urdaneta in 1996. Since 1989 he has been working in the Oil Industry holding positions of increasing responsibility in the planning, design, installation, commissioning, maintenance, automation and development of Electrical Power Systems, Turbo machinery and High Voltage Motor Controls systems, combined with a solid background in the operation and maintenance of 230, 115, 34.5, 12.4 and 6.9 kV Power Sub-stations and Transmission and Distribution Power Lines. Actually he works for Chevron since 2003 .

Juan Chavez is a native from Peru and began his career in electrical power quality equipment in 1995. He worked exclusively in Peru from 1995 until 2001 focusing on surge and transient problems in Lima Peru and surrounding areas. Since that time he has been dedicated to the study the surge problems around South America. His conference speaking along with practical experience in the use of surge protection devices has benefited large and small companies throughout the continent. His employment experience includes Chesterton Company, SP Comercial, Intelicorp S.A. and he is currently Vice President of South American Sales for Energy Control Systems.

Jeff Edwards was born in Fort Worth Texas in June of 1958. He is a graduate of Texas Tech University of Lubbock Texas. He currently resides in Fort Worth Texas and is the founding President of ECS International Inc. and its subsidiary companies. Following his graduation from the university he spent several years in the Telecommunications industry prior to founding his own telephone interconnect company in 1985. In April of 1987 he pursued an opportunity in the fledgling Power Quality industry and founded Energy Control Systems. Since that time he has traveled, spoken about Increasing Profitability through Proper Application of Surge Suppression to companies and in conferences in Europe, Middle East, Asia and in South America. Andrea Haa (Andi) was born and raised in New York. She has also lived and worked in South America and has over 20 years experience in the surge suppression industry with extensive involvement in the standards and certification areas. She serves on the Standards Technical Panel for Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. UL 1449 and UL 67. She also serves as a member of several IEEE Working Groups for the Surge Protective Device Committee (SPDC), which are responsible for the C62.41 Standards referenced in this paper as well as Secondary Arrestor Standards. Additionally she serves on the IEC TC 37 committee which is responsible for High Voltage and Low Voltage Surge