Feature

Perimeter Security

High Security Perimeters – still some way to a true holistic approach?

Perimeter security

Great strides have been made, especially in the UK in recent years, in the development of some aspects of high security perimeters. Yet recent work by the Perimeter Security Suppliers Association (PSSA) shows that there is still some scepticism across the industry, including among many end users, regarding the quality, suitability and effectiveness of many high security perimeters being installed today.

Ironically, in some respects this scepticism reflects rising standards; developments in some areas are highlighting shortcomings in others. However, this also emphasises the general concern; there are still a number of obstacles negating the ability to take a truly holistic approach to high security perimeter design, implementation and use.

Hostile Vehicle Mitigation
One area to have really moved forward is the understanding and development of high impact-resistant Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) products. This has seen a lot of testing and development with many new innovative products meeting the PAS68 standards for impact resistance.

This is all constructive, however, there is still a widespread myth that PAS68 is a catch-all credential bestowing a total fit-for-purpose badge on a product, and this is simply not the case. Though a successful impact test to PAS68 may have taken place there remains no verification that any product being sold is the same (or has been installed the same) as the product that was actually tested. Also, a PAS68 designation says little about a product’s reliability, longevity, duty cycle, serviceability etc. but many purchasers assume a product’s PAS68 designation means it meets some minimum levels for these criteria.

The PSSA has spent many months working with UKAS certification bodies, and players right across the industry and user community to develop a certificated verification scheme and to agree the standards to certify against. For the first time there will soon be an independent certification process available for HVM products.

Operational requirements
Another area that has moved forward is the much more widespread use of properly developed Operational Requirements. A general view across the industry is that the most critical factor determining the success of any high security perimeter system is whether it started with a properly drawn up, comprehensive Operational Requirement document. Since this should define every subsequent stage this is where a true holistic approach succeeds or fails.

This needs to have considered every facet of the site’s operation including not only threat types, levels and possible responses, but also abnormal situations such as unexpected equipment failure, and post incident scenarios when resources and attention are displaced from normally expected areas and duties. Reassuringly, the PSSA’s work detects a rising confidence that greater and more comprehensive use is being made of Operational Requirements generally. However, there still remain inhibitors to their full and proper use.

Of greatest concern is that due to the high security nature of any Operational Requirement document it is difficult to share this across all involved in its implementation. It is rarely seen as a whole document (if at all) by any but the end-user, client or system designer. The main contractor, specialist Integrator, and the manufacturer are generally excluded, and see only the parts deemed relevant to themselves. Often no-one sees the complete picture, negating everybody’s ability (even assuming they all had the skill) to contribute to a fully integrated system.

A PSSA objective based on this is that all involved should have a minimum defined level of training in all aspects of high security perimeter design. This would apply to all PSSA membership classes, designer, manufacturer, integrator or service provider. This would ensure that any shortcomings, especially in the interfaces and integration between components/systems that don’t always appear initially, won’t get overlooked.

Integrating products
Another concern revolves around main contractors and their ability under the current regime to fully integrate diverse high security products and services. Not that main contractors lack construction skills or commitment to fully meeting a specification, but rather their focus is on meeting a fixed specification with high emphasis on minimising timescales and cost for their clients. This, it is felt, negates the ability to refine the detail of Operational Requirement documents as each specialist perimeter product or installation/service provider is brought on board. The level of detail required to ensure complete and proper integration cannot take place until final decisions regarding products and providers have been made and this selection process often takes place after selection of, and within the remit of, the main contractor. The industry feels that there must be a way to allow controlled, appropriate refinement of requirements as a project progresses and it’s full details emerge.

A third concern is that often the Operational Requirement document doesn’t go chronologically far enough and is often silent on post-installation activities. An appropriate servicing regime based on the specific equipment selected, usage levels, and site conditions is a good starting point. However, repair lead times also need to be considered, and take account of site operational constraints. This includes usage levels and organisational resilience, for instance alternative entrance control strategies and resources available during emergency situations to operate them, but also the reliability of specific equipment installed. Generally looking back it becomes obvious that repair lead times need to start to be considered before product selection and installation takes place, but this often doesn’t happen.

One further consideration that the Operational Requirement document needs to address from the outset is that of unintended damage to installed equipment by vehicle impact. Even minor impacts can compromise the impact rating of certain products and having the skill available to determine this quickly is often necessary if a site’s operation is not to be compromised. This skill level is not normally available at most sites and addressing this in the Operational Requirement document ensures this is taken into account at the product/supplier selection stage. Beyond this stage it is likely to be too late.

Main focus
So far, the PSSA’s main focus has been on launching a certification scheme, and developing the standards to go with it, for HVM rated products and manufacturers. Since there are still relatively few HVM rated fence systems most of this work by definition has focused on entrance control systems. However, the plan is that this work continues so that before long the scheme covers the entire perimeter, including high security (non HVM) fencing.

Interestingly, from discussion with the industry the PSSA expects a convergence technically between standards employed for fencing (mostly today manual attack ratings) and HVM products (mostly impact ratings); the industry is starting to recognise that both products in some degree often need both ratings. This makes good logical sense and introduction of the PSSA’s scheme will hasten and simplify this process.

Similarly, it is also intended that once running the scheme is quickly extended to cover the design, integration, installation and maintenance phases of projects, with certification available for PSSA members to verify their competence, training, processes, methods and quality of work in these areas.

This staged approach is being taken since such a large task needs to start somewhere and it makes sense to focus first on product and its manufacture. Also, since HVM equipment tends to be the most complex part of a perimeter in terms of design, manufacture and testing, then any scheme developed for HVM should be fairly easily and rapidly applicable to the fencing and the rest of the perimeter. This may be much more difficult the other way around. Since a high security perimeter can on occasion also include other systems such as doors and glazing the intention is that these eventually can also be covered by the PSSA’s scheme.

Another reason for this staged approach is that high security fencing is some way behind HVM equipment in terms of having usable, generally accepted standards. While the standard applicable to HVM rated products, PAS68 doesn’t go much beyond impact rating. It does, however, cover a complete range to the very highest impacts, it is very widely adopted, is publicly available, and is an operational rather than prescriptive (i.e. doesn’t define actual product specifications) standard.

Security requirements

The same is not true for high security fencing. While LPS 1175 is now generally accepted as an excellent starting point for fencing in terms of manual attack rating, and is freely available, well developed and widely adopted, there are higher security requirements already being fulfilled by the industry for which there are now no generally recognised standards.

Rightly or wrongly, the industry previously used government ratings to define high security fencing but these have recently been completely overhauled and re-named, and their use limited to government applications, with proper confidentiality now being enforced. These standards can therefore no longer be used commercially. The PSSA’s work to eventually include high security fencing in its certification scheme will help to clarify and move forward this important area.

Based on the industry’s concerns, the PSSA’s objectives, in order, are to complete the launch of a basic certification scheme for HVM  products and manufacturers, extend the scope to include high security fencing and other products, then quickly extend participation to include the design, integration, installation and maintenance phases of work.

While recognising that this is a huge task, much of the groundwork is already complete, and with the industry’s support the PSSA are confident this will accelerate the adoption, convergence, and raising of standards, and contribute greatly to the industry’s desire for a much more holistic approach to high security perimeters.

Notes
LPS1175 is the property of BRE Gobal limited and subject to their conditions relating to use and reproduction.

PAS68 is the property of BSI and subject to their conditions relating to use and reproduction.

For more information
admin@pssasecurity.org
www.pssasecurity.org

Partners

View the latest
digital issue