Reshaping the Perimeter
Developing the basics of deter, detect, delay and deny
- By Craig Summers
- Dec 01, 2019
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.