Utility Week - authoritative, impartial and essential reading for senior people within utilities, regulators and government
Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/686319
The Topic: Infrastructure security UTILITY WEEK | 3RD - 9TH JUNE 2016 | 15 METAL PRICES VERSUS METAL THEFTS T he utilities sector is vulnerable to physical threats associated with the, contamination and ter- rorism, and disruption to service or supply that could occur as a result of unauthorised access to critical operational areas. In the water sector, emphasis is oen placed on elec- tronic monitoring or surveillance hardware to protect critical areas – and this is adequate in some instances. However, this does not address the immediate physi- cal threat of a perimeter security breach and, given the remote location of some facilities, security staff or emer- gency services may be able to respond only long aer a breach has been detected. Physically safeguarding water supply and equip- ment is of paramount importance. The areas that are at the most risk are control rooms and water treat- ment plants, which have been identified as potential targets for acts of terrorism. We should not, however, underestimate other areas of risk such as storage facili- ties and buildings that house high-value assets and dangerous chemicals. Physical security should play a significant part in the "layered" security strategy of any operator. Physical security measures – such as wall panels and locks – used to protect critical areas should be certified by the Loss Prevention Certification Board or approved by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure to guarantee both their quality and suitability. Mike McColl, managing director, Securiclad Viewpoint: When it comes to protecting the country's water supplies, there is no substitute for physical security as part of a properly 'layered' regime. manifests itself in the form of fences, walls, barbed wire and locked cabinets. Securiclad managing director Mike McColl tells Utility Week that the goal of physi- cal security is not so much to prevent access, because "given enough time anyone can get through" the security devices in place. He says the aim is to slow down potential thieves long enough for them to be caught and arrested – or to create enough of a barrier that they think it is just not worth the effort. Innovative new barriers include strengthened cabi- nets and digital locks, which make it more difficult for anyone to gain unauthorised access. Utilities are also adopting technology in the fight against crime. This goes beyond the use of CCTV cam- eras on-site, and includes the use of drones to monitor sites that would otherwise be difficult to access, and automated monitoring systems that include motion sen- sors and vibration detectors. Impacts Metal the can cause significant, and life-threatening, problems. One example occurred in Dartford in 2009 aer a suspected metal the attempt. It resulted in 94,000 customers losing supply, with almost 20,000 customers off supply for more than 24 hours. The incident also affected four major electricity circuits, hitting homes, businesses, petrol stations and Darent Valley Hospital in Dartford. The criminals were unsuccessful in obtaining any metal because of the intensity of the resulting fire. The costs associated with the recovery of supplies were not only that of the physical reinstatement but also included initial goodwill payments to custom- ers and another £700,000 distributed to more than 12,000 of those worst-affected. Also, a community fund of £750,000 was set up to support local causes to ben- efit residents. Another example occurred in July 2011 at Castleford when thieves cut the neutral cable of an overhead power line. This caused the supply to six nearby terraces to become live. A resulting spark from an electrical appliance burnt through the gas pipe of a cooker, causing a leak, which then ignited. Luckily no-one was killed but six homes will have to be demolished. Preventing incidents such as these not only improves public safety, but cuts cost for the utilities, and ulti- mately their consumers. Comparison of trends in Energy Networks Association reported metal thefts, with trend in copper market prices, England and Wales, Jan 2009 - Dec 2013 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Number of reported incidents £ per tonne Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Scrap value of copper Number of ENA metal theft incidents Sources: metal prices from letsrecycle.com; metal thefts from the Energy Networks Association 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013