0407-013Mep-ok 4/01/07 18:35 Page 77

WORKING GROUP
B3.03

TECHNICAL BROCHURE NO.253

SUBSTATION PHYSICAL
Security Trends
Gunnar ADAMCZEWSKI*, Anne-Marie SAHAZIZIAN, AND Jackie BENDER, ON BEHALF OF WORKING GROUP B3.03
* Principal Author

INTRODUCTION 45% represented Government-Char- Slightly more than half of the

tered organizations. The majority of respondents did not consider that
respondents reported owning sub- their company was concerned about
It is an unfortunate fact that in
stations in both suburban and rural intrusions leading to power out-
today’s society maintaining the secu-
environments with 30 indicating that ages; slightly less than half
rity of physical assets has become
fewer than 25% of their substations expressed equal concerns about
increasingly important and difficult
are located in urban environments. intrusions resulting in damage of
and is compounded by the increasing
Countries represented include assets personal injury.
trend towards litigation. Fortunately
those from Europe, North America,
substation asset owners have a range
Asia, North Africa, the Middle East Of the 25 respondents that
of options available to address the
and the Pacific Rim. responded to the question on their top
issue, the final solution adopted by a
security concerns, the majority con-
particular utility being dependent on
local legislation, economic feasibility
SECURITY THREATS sidered this to be terrorism, followed
by theft and vandalism. Sabotage was
and company policy.
With respect to when system lowest on their list of concerns.
In September 2002 Cigré Work-
intrusions most commonly occur, the
ing Group B3-03 undertook an inter-
national survey of utilities to estab-
majority of respondents reported the PREVENTION AND
lish how the industry is dealing with
frequency as being 1 – 5 incidents per DETECTION
year for the three stages of substa-
the security of substation assets. Key
tion development. Of these, 9 Only eighteen twenty-one out of
issues addressed in the survey
respondents reported that they expe- forty respondents reported that
include:
rienced intrusions during the Pre-con- their company has a substation
✔ Demographics – including type
struction Phase, 14 reported that they physical security policy, a plan or
and location of substation, eg. sub-
occurred during the Construction guidelines for managing substation
urban, suburban, rural, industrial/com-
Phase, and 23 reported that they incident response. However, all
mercial
occurred during the Operation Phase. other respondents indicated that
✔ Security Threats, including
Four respondents experienced more they incorporate some form of phys-
number, type and severity
than 20 intrusions per year during the ical security measure in the substa-
✔ Prevention and Detection
Operation Phase. tion design.
✔ Effectiveness of Security Mea-
sures
✔ Maintenance of Security Mea-
sures The most commonly experienced types of intrusion
✔ Security Response – managing are shown in the pie chart below:
incidents.

DEMOGRAPHICS
A total of 41 companies ranging
in size from 6 to 134,000 employees
participated in this survey. Out of the
41 participants, 40 were representing
electric utilities, of which 55% rep-
resented investor-owned utilities and

No. 215 - August 2004 E L E C T R A 77

0407-013Mep-ok 4/01/07 18:35 Page 79
The most common physical secu-
rity measures that utilities employ,
selected from a provided list, include
alarm systems, security lighting,
signs, chain link fencing, road gates
and locks. The least popular of these
options were plastic barriers, guard
dogs and sound detectors. Other
security measures employed by util-
ities include: infrared rays, indoor
AIS/GIS up to 123kV, laser ray sys-
tems, trenches, camouflage, palisade
fencing, steel doors, crash barriers,
security bars for windows, and con-
crete walls for major transformers.
The following factors were issues
of significant concern to all respon-
dents:
▲ Geographic location
▲ Load criticality
▲ Proximity to public places
(schools, community centres etc)
▲ Substation reliability, and
▲ Voltage level
Of these, substation reliability
was the factor that raised the high-
est concern.
The majority of respondents
expressed greater concern for sub-
stations located in urban locations than
rural environment. In a similar manner
the physical security of substations with
the highest voltage level was the cause
for greatest concern. However, over-
all results indicate that respondents are
concerned about the physical security
of substations regardless of their loca-
tion or operating voltage.
EFFECTIVENESS OF
SECURITY
MEASURES
Utilities were asked to indicate
their experience of the effectiveness
of the following categories of secu-
rity measures:
C O N T I N U E D
▲ Fencing (all types)
▲ Electric/Electronic systems
(including lighting, card readers,
video cameras, sound and motion
detectors)
▲ Human Factor (guards, manned
stations, routine security checks)
▲ Other (including signs, road
gates, guard dogs, etc)
The distribution of responses for
all four categories was approxi-
mately the same with more than 68%
reporting that each was either
“Effective” or “Very/Completely
Effective”. Human Factor and Elec-
tric/Electronic Systems were
reported to be marginally the most
effective, followed by “Other” mea-
sures. Twenty eight percent of
respondents reported that fencing
was “Very/Completely Effective”.
In their responses to specific
options:
▲ 20 out of 21 respondents con-
sidered that a solid wall was either
“effective” or “very/completely effec-
tive” whereas only 15 out of 26 con-
sider a chain link fence to be an effec-
tive security measure.
▲ 20 out of 23 respondents
believe that a video camera is either
“effective” or “very/completely
effective”, and 13 out of 15 report
card readers to be an effective secu-
rity measure.
▲ Sound detectors were consid-
ered to be the least effective security
measure.
▲ The majority of respondents
believe a security guard or a manned
station is either “effective” or
“very/completely effective” whereas
routine security checks were mostly
deemed to be either “somewhat
effective” or “effective”.
▲ Locks and gates were also con-
sidered to be effective.
W O R K I N G G R O U P B3.03
TECHNICAL BROCHURE NO.253
MAINTENANCE OF
SECURITY
MEASURES
All respondents reported that
they regularly assess the condition or
functionality of their security mea-
sures. For substations 50 kV to over
250 kV a monthly check is the pre-
ferred frequency. However, a signif-
icant number of respondents
reported a frequency of assessment
other than the options listed, includ-
ing: daily, when workers enter the
premises, as required, spontaneous,
weekly, every 3 or 6 months or every
2-3 years.
SECURITY RESPONSE
Approximately half of the
respondents advised that they have
a written policy, plan, or guideline
for managing substation incident
response and will notify law enforce-
ment and emergency services in the
event of a security breach. However
the majority did not have a part-
nership arrangement with law
enforcement services for automatic
intervention.
CONCLUSION
This paper provides a brief overview
of the range of substation physical secu-
rity measures adopted by the electrical
industry. The new technical brochure
will include the full survey results and
include additional material on substa-
tion categorisation and common phys-
ical security measures.
REFERENCE
Survey on “Substation Physical
Security” undertaken by Cigré WG
B3-03 in September 2002. ■
No. 215 - August 2004 E L E C T R A 79