IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 54, NO.

1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2018 889

ARC Flash KPI Compliance at a Large

Oil and Gas Company
Ritchie Pragale , Senior Member, IEEE, Amar Patel, Member, IEEE, and Roger Bresden

Abstract—An oil and gas company’s arc flash electrical safe

operations program is a corporate initiative to prevent electrical
arc flash injuries. The program implements the company general
instruction—electrical arc flash hazard mitigation, which provides
minimum safe work requirements for protection of personnel in
the workplace against electrical arc flash hazards in accordance
with the National Fire Protection Agency 70E. The program tracks
five key performance indicators (KPIs) to protect employees from
arc flash hazards in all company facilities, which are as follows:
1) technology deployment; 2) training and certification; 3) opera-
tion and maintenance delineation; 4) operation and maintenance
unified procedures; and 5) arc flash analysis. To verify compliance,
the company initiated field-based assessments conducted by a spe-
cialized team of Power Systems Compliance and Electrical Engi-
neers. The assessments are designed to validate each facility’s com-
pliance as well as to identify any opportunities for improvement in
the application of arc flash mitigation. The assessors utilized a stan-
dardized checklist to determine the level to which established KPIs Fig. 1. Arc Flash PPE available in all company substations.
have been implemented. The checklists are weighted and scored
to validate compliance in a consistent manner. This paper demon-
strates a structured approach to measure arc flash KPI compliance Program [2]. The company issued a general instruction (GI),
and highlights some findings and practical examples that can be which became the governing document for the program. The
applied at many oil and gas facilities. GI was published in October 2009 although the groundwork
Index Terms—Arc flash, arc flash hazard analysis, arc flash that led to the final document was started several years ear-
mitigation, compliance assessment, protective device coordination, lier. Commonly referred to as the “Arc Flash GI,” it applies to
short circuit. construction, commissioning, start-up, operation, maintenance,
and demolition activities at all company electrical installations
I. INTRODUCTION whenever there is the possibility that an electrical arc flash may
occur [3].
N ARC flash hazard is a dangerous condition associated
A with the possible release of energy caused by an electric
arc [1]. An arc flash is the light and heat produced from an elec- A. Arc Flash Electrical Safe Operations Program History
tric arc supplied with sufficient electrical energy that can damage The objective of the Arc Flash Mitigation Program is to re-
equipment and injure personnel. These injuries can range from duce the likelihood and severity of Arc Flash occurrence and
minor burns to third degree burns and potential death as well as loss in all company facilities—a challenging task to manage
other injuries including blindness, hearing loss, nerve damage, considering there are 1500 electrical substations distributed over
and cardiac arrest. After a string of arc flash related injuries 100 facilities consisting of gas plants, refineries and natural gas
and fatalities, a large oil and gas company responded with a liquids (NGL) plants, gas oil separation plants (GOSP), pump
corporate initiative—the Arc Flash Electrical Safe Operations stations, offshore platforms, storage facilities, loading terminals,
and communities throughout the country.
Manuscript received June 7, 2016; accepted September 27, 2016. Date of pub- Early stages of program implementation (2009 to 2014) mir-
lication August 22, 2017; date of current version January 18, 2018. Paper 2016 rored the focus of the GI document to mitigate arc flash. This
-PCIC-0572, presented at the 2016 Petroleum and Chemical Industry Con-
ference, Philadelphia, PA, USA, Sep. 19–22, and approved for publication in was accomplished by deploying available technologies such as
the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the Petroleum and remote racking and remote switching devices and personnel
Chemical Industry Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. (Cor- protective equipment (PPE) to protect the electrical worker—
responding author: Ritchie Pragale.)
The authors are with the Saudi Aramco, Dhahran 31311, Saudi Arabia (e-mail: electrical system operators (ESO) and technicians. Initially,
ritchie.pragale@aramco.com; amar.patel@aramco.com; roger.bresden@ the goal was to reduce the risk to personnel by moving the
aramco.com). worker outside the arc flash boundary. About over a 100 remote
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. racking devices (RRDs) and 40 calories/cm2 rated suits were
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2017.2743173 deployed for this purpose in nearly all substations throughout

0093-9994 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember. Downloaded on December 09,2021 at 19:30:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
890 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 54, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2018

the company. Simultaneously, several arc flash hazard analy- TABLE I

ARC FLASH COMPLIANCE KPIS
ses for large-scale facilities were commissioned. An arc flash
hazard analysis is required for all electrical distribution equip-
ment up to 38 kV as per the company electrical standards. For KPI Elements and Controls
equipment up to 15 kV, the incident energy and arc flash bound- Technology Deployment • Remote Racking
ary calculation method outline in IEEE 1584 were used [4]. For • Remote Switching
• Equipment Labeling
equipment greater than 15 kV up to 38 kV, analysis was based on • Arc Rated PPE
the Ralph Lee Calculation Method [1]. The analysis is the foun-
Training and Certification • EHR
dation upon which all of the other mitigation efforts are derived; • HDPT
thus, it was imperative that all company facilities complete it. • CESOR
However, since the arc flash analyses required time to complete, Operation & Maintenance • Roles and Responsibilities
the company utilized the Hazard Risk Categories associated (O&M) Delineation
with the task method outlined in the National Fire Protection Unified O&M Procedures • Operations Procedures
• Maintenance Procedures
Agency (NFPA) standard 70E-2012, [3, Table 130.7(C)(15)(a)]
Arc Flash Analysis • Facility Arc Flash Study
to bridge the gap until several of the company’s large facilities
completed their arc flash analysis.

B. Update of Company Safety Standards

The purpose of the Arc Flash GI is to define the minimum safe
work requirements for protection of personnel against electrical
arc flash hazards in the workplace in accordance with NFPA
70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the workplace [1]. The
company’s Arc Flash GI was recently updated to include ef-
fective arc flash hazard mitigation solutions—a more advanced
stage of the Arc Flash Electrical Safe Operations Program im-
plementation. This is a major shift away from the initial focus of
using PPE to more advanced arc flash mitigation technologies.
The main reasons for the update were as follows.
1) Improve overall electrical safety by reducing the risk of
arc flash. Fig. 2. Technology deployment KPI.
2) Ensure personnel survivability after an arc flash event.
3) Ensure a reliable power supply by limiting equipment complete arc flash analyses for various facilities throughout the
damage caused by an arc flash event [3]. company.
Hazard elimination (i.e., de-energized work) is the preferred
control method of arc flash hazard mitigation. In the event that
elimination of hazard through isolation is not feasible, the pro- II. ARC FLASH KPIS
gram utilizes a hierarchy of control measures philosophy to As the appointed program coordinator, the company’s Power
identify risk and apply systematic controls in the following se- Systems Engineering Department is responsible for tracking
quence: 1) engineering controls; and 2) administrative controls. corporate compliance. This is accomplished through five estab-
lished KPIs that together provide an overlapping set of controls
that help the company mitigate arc flash hazards in all facilities.
C. Corporate Performance
During the early program stage, Arc Flash KPI progress, which
The assessment team continues to monitor steady improve- is self-reported compliance percentages, was tracked and quar-
ments in the Arc Flash key performance indicator (KPI) perfor- terly updates were issued. However, as the program progressed
mance. Starting in 2012, overall company compliance has risen and compliance neared the set KPI targets, compliance reporting
8%–10% year over year. Actions are being taken to ensure no was changed to semiannual updates.
barriers exist to compliance. More specifically, gaps in technol-
ogy deployment are being closed through close interaction with
A. Engineering Controls
equipment vendors to ensure that universal RRDs currently in
place is commissioned, properly set up for the equipment, and 1) Technology Deployment—Contains Four Elements Re-
that company technicians and ESOs are competent and com- quired in All Company Substations: The primary purpose is
mitted to use the equipment. There is a strong push to have to monitor the progress of deploying proven arc flash mitigation
remote switching capability in all substations by using portable technology that eliminate or reduce the effects of an arc flash
remote operators or supervisory control and data acquisition hazard. These elements include remote racking, remote switch-
based switching options. In addition, the company’s Power Sys- ing, task warning signs and specific equipment labeling, and
tems Engineering Department is committing more resources to PPE.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember. Downloaded on December 09,2021 at 19:30:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
PRAGALE et al.: ARC FLASH KPI COMPLIANCE AT A LARGE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 891

Fig. 3. Typical breaker racking prior to remote racking technology.

Fig. 5. Typical universal RRD installed in all company substations.

Fig. 4. Racking in/out an medium voltage breaker using an RRD.

RRDs must be provided to allow ESOs to safely rack-in/rack-

out breakers. A typical electrical substation in the company
contains 13.8 kV, 4.16 kV, and 480 V switchgear and control
gear. A universal RRD is required that will work with all types of
withdrawable breakers that exist in the substation. The RRDs put
physical distance between the ESO and the energized electrical
equipment, and reduce the level of exposure should an arc flash
event occur (see Figs. 3, 4, and 5).
Remote Switching must be provided to allow ESOs to switch
circuit breakers safely (e.g., 15 kV, 5 kV, or 600 V class circuit
breakers). Some substations are equipped with remote switching Fig. 6. Operating an low voltage Breaker using a portable remote switching
capability, while others are equipped with remote switching device.
within the substation itself. For others with neither, portable
remote switching operators are used.
Task warning signs and equipment labeling—task method
outlined in NFPA 70E-2012, Table 130.7(C)(15)(a) must be
posted in the substation and all electrical distribution equip-
ment (e.g., 600 V class panelboards, switchboards, and switch
racks, 38 kV class and below metal clad switchgear, 5 kV class
and below motor control gear, automatic transfer switches, vari-
able frequency drives and control cabinets, pad mounted SF6
switchgear, and direct-current systems) are required to have
specific arc flash labels (refer to Fig. 7).
Arc-rated PPE—when the arc safe electrical safe opera-
tions program was launched initially, everyday work wear for
company employees and contractors who perform energized Fig. 7. Equipment-specific arc flash label.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember. Downloaded on December 09,2021 at 19:30:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
892 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 54, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2018
electrical work was Arc Flash PPE rated 8 calories/cm2 ; Arc
Flash PPE rated 40 calories/cm2 were stored in the substations
to be used as needed. After the Arc Flash GI update, the ev-
eryday work wear will be Arc Flash PPE rated 12 calories/cm2
and new Arc Rated PPE rated 40 calories/cm2 made from lighter
fabric will replace the current ones stored in the substations. The
company provides arc Flash PPE to all employees and contrac-
tors. The company requires that PPE be used consistently as per
level of risk; it must be clean, stored, and maintained properly.
B. Administrative Controls
1) Training and Certification—Includes But Is Not Limited
to Electrical Hazard Recognition (EHR): All ESOs and tech-
nicians are required to successfully complete the course. It is
required to perform any work on electrical equipment operated
at more than 240 V.
a) Hazardous-duty potential testing (HDPT): Company
technicians as well as those who receive or release work clear-
ances, test for potentials, and/or apply/remove grounds on elec-
trical equipment rated at or above 1000 V must successfully
complete the HDPT requirements.
b) Corporate ESO certification/recertification (CESOR):
all ESOs are required to complete the course—pass a written
exam and complete the field assessment requirements. A CE-
SOR certificate is required to perform hazardous-duty switch-
ing, including circuit breaker insertion/removal, in all company
facilities.
For initial certification, the candidates attend instructor-led
courses that last anywhere from one day to several weeks. Per-
sonnel re-certification is required every three years and is typi-
cally completed via online course.
2) Operation and Maintenance Delineation: The objective
was to define clear and consistent roles and responsibilities be-
tween a facility’s maintenance and operation units and the com-
pany’s Power Systems Operations Department (e.g., equipment
ownership, switching operations, maintenance responsibilities,
etc.). The responsibility for power systems operation and main-
tenance are outlined in a separate company GI. The company
achieved 100% compliance as of 2012.
3) Unified Procedures—Operation and Maintenance: The
objective was to unify the electrical operation and maintenance
procedures to best in class practices at all company facilities.
These procedures include electrical switching and isolation, en-
ergizing new equipment, minimum requirements for electrical
equipment maintenance, etc. The new unified procedures re-
placed all existing fragmented operation and maintenance pro-
cedures and were integrated into each facility’s operating in-
structions. The company achieved 100% compliance as of 2015.
4) Arc Flash Analysis: The arc flash analysis is the foun-
dation of the arc flash mitigation program at every company
facility; a company best practice procedure was developed to
guide engineers on how to perform or review arc flash hazard
analysis using commercially available power system analysis
and design software [3].
The facility arc flash studies were implemented in two phases.
The first phase was data gathering (field work), modeling in
Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember. Downloaded on December 09,2021 at 19:30:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 8. Arc flash analysis KPI.
power systems software, and arc flash analysis of the existing
power system. The second phase involved arc flash mitigation
of locations with incident energy greater than 40 calories/cm2 ,
equipment labeling, and personnel training. All arc-flash hazard
analyses was performed in association with or as a continua-
tion of the short-circuit study and protective-device coordination
study [4]. More than 40 arc flash studies have been conducted
so far for various company facilities. It was observed that a sig-
nificant number of the dangerous locations are at the line side
of low voltage switchgear, i.e., main circuit breaker cubicle.
This is not surprising knowing that the arcing fault at this
location will be cleared by the upstream protective relay at
the high side of distribution transformer. Currently, company
compliance is at 70.4% (refer to Fig. 8); however, several large
facilities are nearing arc flash analysis completion that will bring
compliance to over 90%.
III. ARC FLASH COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
The arc flash KPI compliance assessment program consists
of field-based internal assessments conducted by a team com-
prised of safety professionals, field compliance and electrical
power systems engineers—all under the Power Systems En-
gineering Department. The compliance program consists of
field-based assessments through a combination of on-site ob-
servations, interviews/discussions with facility engineers, ESOs
and technicians, as well as reviewing existing documentation.
The assessment team has highlighted positive aspects of exist-
ing arc flash KPI compliance, as well as identifying areas of
opportunity for improvement.
A. Assessment Methodology
The assessments are designed to validate the proponent’s
stated compliance to the Arc Flash KPIs as well as to identify
any high-level opportunities for improvement in application of
arc flash mitigation efforts at every substation assessed.
The assessors used a standardized assessment checklist (see
pre-assessment checklist in Table II). The checklist questions
are weighted and scored. By using this standardized checklist,
PRAGALE et al.: ARC FLASH KPI COMPLIANCE AT A LARGE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 893

TABLE II TABLE IV
PREASSESSMENT TASKS CHECKLIST ARC FLASH ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

Task # Description (Pre-Assessment Tasks) Task # Description

1 Establish Assessment Team 1 Is the arc flash hazard analysis complete?

2 Establish on-site contact
3 Review power system one-line diagram
4 Review Arc Flash Compliance KPI progress
5 Review Arc Flash Study Report (if completed)
6 Review training and certification records
2 Are there overdutied devices in the substation?
3 Have all arc flash incident energy levels been
reduced below 40 calories/cm2 ?
4 Have arc flash mitigation solutions been
implemented for all Dangerous locations?

TABLE III
COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS
should consider revising the power system configuration
(e.g., tie-breaker close to tie-breaker open for double-
Date Facility Type No. of Substations
ended switchgear, use of current-limiting reactors, etc.) to
11-2014 Power Systems 26
03-2015 GOSP 6 reduce the available fault current. Company facilities also
04-2015 Refinery 24 need to determine an appropriate arc flash mitigation strat-
09-2015 Bulk Plant, Storage 4 egy for equipment locations that exceed 40 calories/cm2 .
10-2015 Gas Plant 23
11-2015 Community 12 The team highlights the following challenges.
Oil Processing 17 1) Transition of the arc flash electrical safe operations pro-
01-2016 Power Systems 2 gram from the task method to analysis method: This will
Refinery 51
02-2016 Gas Plant 23 be the most challenging in terms of ESO and technician
03-2016 Oil Processing 52 re-training requirements and program implementation
NGL Plant 10 2) Alignment of the arc flash analysis KPI to the assessment
04-2016 Refinery 24
Gas Plant 28 requirements (refer to checklist in Table IV): The assess-
Oil Terminal 10 ment requirements are more stringent than the arc flash
05-2016 NGL Plant 28 analysis KPIs. The assessment involves extensive review
Total 340 of the arc flash analysis results and requires each facility
to act on the analysis recommendations.

assessors are able to validate and measure arc flash KPI com-
pliance at all company substations in a consistent manner.
B. Facilities Selected for Assessment
The arc flash compliance assessment team visited the follow-
ing facilities between late 2014 and early 2016:
C. Findings, Recommendations, and Program Challenges
The arc flash compliance assessment team reports that the
surveyed facility’s arc flash KPI compliances are generally in
line with the self-reported percentages. The team highlights the
following assessment findings and recommendations.
1) Technology Deployment: The corporate KPI compliance
will continue to rise towards the 100% target as each
facility ensure RRDs are utilized where possible. RRD
suppliers can assist in ensuring units are commissioned as
well as training on proper use of the RRDs.
2) Training and Certification: New employees and attrition;
training and mentorship program to transfer knowledge
from experienced ESOs and technicians to new (younger)
employees.
3) Arc Flash Analysis: The short-circuit study, performed as
part of the arc flash analysis, has revealed several overdu-
tied equipment (i.e., calculated available fault current ex-
ceeds the equipment rating). Overdutied equipment must
be replaced with properly rated equipment or each facility
IV. FUTURE WORK
By first Quarter 2016, the team has assessed 250 substations.
By the end of 2016, the team plans to assess all company substa-
tions. The assessment team recommends phasing out several of
the arc flash KPI metrics (e.g., operation and maintenance delin-
eation and unified operation and maintenance procedures) where
100% compliance (or near 100%) has been achieved. The objec-
tive is continuous improvement; therefore, the company needs
to measure a different metric that can create positive value.
V. CONCLUSION
General findings from the completed assessments suggest
there are generally positive measures taking place at assessed
locations to ensure arc flash mitigation; however, there are also
many areas of opportunities for improvement. A major challenge
will be the transition away from the arc flash task (or table)
method to the analysis method. Implementation of this new
strategy will be facilitated as the company’s compliance to the
arc flash analysis KPI nears 100%.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors express their gratitude to Mr. A. Al-Omair and
Mr. M. B. Al-Zuabi for their contributions in developing this
paper.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember. Downloaded on December 09,2021 at 19:30:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
894 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 54, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2018
REFERENCES
[1] Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, NFPA 70E
[2] A. Al-Zahrani, “Implementing a corporate electric arc flash safety pro-
gram,” in Proc. Process Safety Techn. Exchange Conf., Nov. 2009, pp. 2–3.
[3] R. Mahayni, J. Bugshan, and R. Pragale, “Arc flash mitigation for 1500
substations: A corporate approach,” in Proc. Petroleum Chem. Ind. Conf.,
Houston, TX, USA, Oct. 2015, pp. 1–7.
[4] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, ANSI/IEEE
Standard 1584-2002
[5] R. Pragale, A. Patel, and R. Bresden, “Arc flash KPI compliance at a large
oil & gas company,” in Proc. Petroleum Chem. Ind. Conf., Philadelphia,
PA, USA, 2016, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/PCICON.2016.7589222.
Ritchie Pragale (S’00–M’05–SM’12) received
the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona,
CA, USA, in 2002, and the M.Sc. degree in elec-
trical engineering from California State University,
Long Beach, CA, in 2008.
He joined Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia,
in 2012, as an Electrical Engineer with the Power Sys-
tems Engineering Department. Previously, he worked
at Eaton Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, as a Senior
Power Systems Engineer. He has 15 years of power
systems experience involving analytical studies and power quality investigations
of industrial and commercial power systems. He has written several technical
papers on power systems analysis, power quality, electrical equipment asset
management, and arc flash safety.
Mr. Pragale is a certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional and a
licensed Professional Engineer in the states of CA, TX, and WA.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember. Downloaded on December 09,2021 at 19:30:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Amar Patel (M’14) received the B.Sc. degree in elec-
trical engineering from the University of Houston,
Houston, TX, USA, in 2008.
He is currently an Electrical Engineer with Saudi
Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, with the Power Sys-
tems Engineering Department, specializing in high-
voltage equipment. Previously, he worked at Valero,
Texas City, TX, as an Electrical Power Engineer for
four years.
Roger Bresden received the diploma degree in oc-
cupation hygiene, the Fourth Class Power Engineer
Certificate, and has technical qualifications in natural
gas processing technology, and water and wastewater
treatment operations.
He has 25 Years of experience in HSE, Emer-
gency Management and Security, experience in in-
dustry, consulting and local government. He cur-
rently provides HSE Support to the Downstream
Business Line, including the Power System’s Admin
Area, with Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
He has extensive experience in management system and program design and
implementation.
Mr. Bresden holds a Canadian Registered Safety Professional designation.