Reshaping the Perimeter

Developing the basics of deter, detect, delay and deny

Driven by the 2013 physical assault on a California substation, the NERC CIP 14 regulation has reshaped the way energy’s physical security directors are viewing perimeter security. The NERC requirements for protecting the Bulk Electric System (BES) have dealt the sector a deadline with a litany of possible answers for assets but, no one solution set fits all the needs. As a result, security directors are now tasked with reviewing a multitude of security options to enhance a site’s physical perimeter in order to find solutions that not only fit the NERC CIP 14 guidelines, but also fall within their budget requirements.

The Learning Curve

The ever-evolving landscape of security needs puts the electrical energy sector in a steep learning curve on how to establish an effective, robust and holistic security program with a realistic budget that is palatable throughout the organization to the C-Suite level. On the bright side for the security executive, there are companies, like ours, that have the ability to help coordinate those needs and provide that holistic approach. They can take an unsecured site from initial security assessment through completion.

Developing a program that addresses the basics of deter, detect, delay and deny has many more options than it did in the past, as security on the perimeter has made marked improvements in technology over the years, including camera analytics, radar and fence-mounted intrusion detection systems. These systems are designed to give advanced warning of an intruder breaching the perimeter. As these technologies continue to get more efficient, fencing manufactures are also bringing new, more delay-driven products to the marketplace. The layering of these products by companies taking a holistic approach will help the decision process on what systems to use and where to deploy them based on the design basis threat (DBT) and assessed adversary task time.

The new broader view of perimeter security has also led to ASTM standards playing a larger role in making decisions on the development of the overall security strategy/posture. The energy sector is largely acquainted with organizations like NIST & ANSI but the ASTM Standards have been somewhat overlooked from the physical side of the vertical. ASTM is an internationally recognized publisher of standards made up of consumers, manufacturers, academics and consultants. ASTM has more than 12,800 published standards and is recognized and accepted by many federal, state and municipal organizations globally as well as the electrical sector.

One of the key standards being recognized, but somewhat underused in the energy industry, is the ASTM F2718-18 Standard Practice for Testing Forced Entry, Ballistic and Low Impact Resistance of Security Fence Systems. This is a unique standard that encapsulates three aspects of physical security. These aspects include testing the ability of two assailants to breach a perimeter with three levels of tool sets ranging from low to aggressive. Examples of the applicable tools are a hacksaw for low, a 20-inch bolt cutter for medium and an oxyacetylene torch for aggressive.

The ballistic specification lays out the testing of three different types of ammunition that include the .38 special handgun (158 Grain-Lead Round Nose), .308 (147 Grain-Full Metal Casing) and 7.62 (U.S. Mil Spec-Steel Jacketed). The pass/fail criteria for the ballistic test is in accordance with the MIL-STD 662F (military ballistic test for armor) and NIJ Standard 0108.01. The low impact resistance of security fence systems is a low-speed test performed at 20 mph by a 4,000-pound bogie vehicle with a 6-inch by 42-inch bumper that is 24 inches off the ground.

Another of the ASTM Specifications being more widely used is the ASTM F2656-18 Standard Test Method for Crash Testing of Vehicle Security Barriers. This standard was taken over from the State Department in 2007 by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers due to manufacturers’ rush to market after the 9/11 attacks.

Prior to 2007 (1985-2007), the DOS’ Bureau of Diplomatic Security handled the testing and certification of the vehicle security barriers. The results of those tests had what you will still see today as K-Ratings with L-Penetrations. DOS only tested 15,000-pound vehicles so you only had one designation that was tested. The tested and certified rating were as follows: K4 (15,000-pound vehicle traveling 30 mph), K8 (15,000-pound vehicle traveling 40 mph), K12 (15,000-pound vehicle traveling 50 mph). The penetration ratings for these ratings are L3 (0- 3.3 feet), L2 (3.3 feet to 20 feet), L1 (20.1 feet to 50 feet). You still see these ratings today specified in projects but are not the most current.

After 2001, the demand for crash-tested barriers rose dramatically and manufactures began to test and request certification at a rate never seen before, hence the move to the USACE for the new ASTM certification. ASTM F2656-18 encompasses a range of vehicles from something as small as a passenger car weighing 2,430-pounds traveling at tested speeds of 30 mph, 40 mph and 50 mph up to a 65,000-pound vehicle traveling 30 mph, 40 mph and 50 mph. Also included in the result of the test is a penetration rating. These ratings are taken from different points of reference on the differing vehicles and barriers tested and are thoroughly outlined in the specification. The penetration ratings are P1 (0-3.3 feet or 1 meter), P2 (3.31 feet to 23feet, or 1.01 meter to 7 meters), P3 (23.1 feet to 98.4 feet, or 7.01 meters to 30 meters). The full list of tested and certified barriers is maintained on the USACE’s website.

For those managing utility sites, protection from threat that could compromise supply or staff is paramount. Perimeter security is the foundation to any complete system, but ensuring compliance at this level is only beneficial as part of a holistic approach to overall security with seamless protection. An expert solutions provider can lead on this for you, ensuring your security system is not only up to code, but has complete interoperability.

This article originally appeared in the November/December 2019 issue of Security Today.

If you like what you see, get more delivered to your inbox weekly.
Click here to subscribe to our free premium content.

comments powered by Disqus
  • Environmental Protection
  • Occupational Health & Safety
  • Infrastructure Solutions Group
  • Spaces4Learning
  • Campus Security & Life Safety