National Security Killed In U.K. Parliament AttackGP0|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a43444652017-03-22T04:00:00Z, Megan Gates<p>​<strong>Update: 23 March 2017, 11:50 a.m.</strong></p><p>​British authorities identified the man responsible for Wednesday's terror attack as 52-year-old Khalid Masood, according to a<a href="" target="_blank"> press release from the London Metropolitan Police.​</a><br></p><p>Masood was born in Kent, and authorities believe he was recently living in the West Midlands in England. </p><p>"Masood was not the subject of any current investigations and there was no prior intelligence about his intent to mount a terrorist attack," the Met said. "However, he was known to police and has a range of previous convictions for assaults, including GBH, possession of offensive weapons, and public order offenses."</p><p><strong>Update: 23 March 201​7, 10:50 a.m.</strong></p><p>The Islamic State claimed responsibility for Wednesday's terrorist attack in London outside the U.K. Houses of Parliament. The assailant--whose identity has not been released--was a British-born man known to the U.K.'s domestic intelligence agency and previously investigated for connections to violent extremism.<br></p><p>U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May said the assailant was a "peripheral figure" that was examined by MI5, but was not "part of the current intelligence picture," according to <em>​<a href="" target="_blank">The New York Times. </a></em><em></em></p><p>Authorities believe the assailant​ acted alone, but continue to investigate the incident while Britain remains at a "severe" threat level.</p><p>"Yesterday, an act of terrorism tried to silence our democracy," May said. "We are not afraid, and our resolve will never waver in the face of terrorism."</p><div class="ms-rtestate-read ms-rte-wpbox"><div class="ms-rtestate-notify ms-rtestate-read 47879554-d7fa-4c6d-80ff-5853f98067e7" id="div_47879554-d7fa-4c6d-80ff-5853f98067e7"></div><div id="vid_47879554-d7fa-4c6d-80ff-5853f98067e7" style="display:none;"></div></div><p>Two of the victims killed in Wednesday's attack have also been identified. A Mormon church official <a href="">told the AP</a> that one of its members--Kurt W. Cochran--was killed in the attack while in London to celebrate his 25th wedding anniversary.​<br></p><p>Officials also released the name of the police officer who was killed in the incident: Constable Keith Palmer, a 48-year-old police officer who formerly served in the Royal Artillery.</p><p><strong>Update: 22 March 2017, 4:00 p.m.</strong><br></p><p>Four people were killed in a terror attack outside the U.K. Houses of Parliament on Wednesday afternoon. Police shot and killed one assailant involved in the attack, but a major security operation remains underway in London. </p><p>Details of the attack—being called a terrorist incident—remain unclear, but <em><a href="" target="_blank">The New York Times</a></em> reports that security officers shot an assailant outside of Parliament after the individual stabbed a police officer. A motorist on an adjacent bridge also hit at least five pedestrians. However, it remains unknown if the assailant—whose name has not been released—and the motorist were the same individual.<br></p><p>At least 20 people were injured in the attack, in addition to the four casualties that included the police officer. Three French schoolchildren were among those injured, <a href="" target="_blank">according to Reuters.</a><br></p><div class="ms-rtestate-read ms-rte-wpbox"><div class="ms-rtestate-notify ms-rtestate-read 59a66d03-5516-4786-bdd2-d5cdc347d2ff" id="div_59a66d03-5516-4786-bdd2-d5cdc347d2ff"></div><div id="vid_59a66d03-5516-4786-bdd2-d5cdc347d2ff" style="display:none;"></div></div><p>​“This is a day we’ve planned for but hoped would never happen. Sadly, it’s now a reality,” said Mark Rowley, head of counterterrorism at the Met, in an interview with <em><a href="" target="_blank">The Guardian​</a></em>. “The attack started when a car was driven over Westminster Bridge hitting and injuring a number of members of the public, also including three police officers on their way back from a commendation ceremony.</p><p>“The car then crashed near to Parliament and at least one man armed with a knife continued the attack and tried to enter Parliament.”<br></p><p>Authorities are now conducting a full counterterrorism investigation into the incident, and are asking the public to stay away from an area of central London, report suspicious activity, and share any video or images of the attack.<br></p><p>"Londoners should be aware that there will be additional armed and unarmed police officers on our streets from tonight in order to keep Londoners, and all those visiting our city, safe," said London Mayor Sadiq Khan in a statement posted to his Twitter feed.</p><p></p><div class="ms-rtestate-read ms-rte-wpbox"><div class="ms-rtestate-notify ms-rtestate-read 75cd54f2-dfa4-4bd7-9e23-4ca16192d225" id="div_75cd54f2-dfa4-4bd7-9e23-4ca16192d225"></div><div id="vid_75cd54f2-dfa4-4bd7-9e23-4ca16192d225" style="display:none;"></div></div><p>​Parliament was in session when the attack occurred at roughly 2:40 p.m. local time, and those in the House of Commons chambers were told to stay in place as officers searched the facility. </p><p>The attack occurred on the one-year anniversary of the <a href="/Pages/Terrorist-Attacks-in-Brussels-Leave-Numerous-Dead.aspx" target="_blank">Brussels attacks</a>, where terrorists bombed the Brussels airport and a metro station.<br></p><p>This is a developing story. <em>Security Management </em>will continue to update this post as more information is confirmed. <br></p><p><br>​</p> Tension Disorder’s-Staying-Over.aspx2016-06-01T04:00:00ZWho’s Staying Over? Picture of U.S. Crime Tension Virtual Lineup Lichtenstein Leaves ASIS, Offers Insights on Trump 101: What to Expect at the U.S. Presidential Inauguration,-Employment,-and-the-Law.aspx2017-01-01T05:00:00ZBrexit, Employment, and the Law Killed In U.K. Parliament Attack;-Authorities-Say-Multiple-Dead.aspx2017-01-06T05:00:00ZGunman Opens Fire at Fort Lauderdale Airport; Authorities Say Multiple Dead Water Woes

 You May Also Like... Picture of U.S. Crime <p>​“We need more transparency and accountability in law enforcement. We also need better, more informed conversations about crime and policing in this country,” ​U.S. FBI Director James Comey said when his agency issued its most recent national crime statistics late last year.</p><p>And so, the FBI is moving forward on two major initiatives toward this goal. The agency has started collecting information for its first nationwide use-of-force database. This will be an online database containing information on interactions—both nonfatal and deadly—that U.S. law enforcement officers have with the public.   </p><p>Back in 2014, the U.S. Congress passed the Death in Custody Reporting Act (DCRA), which required states and federal law enforcement agencies to report data to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) when civilians died during interactions with law enforcement. The DCRA also authorizes the U.S. attorney general to impose financial penalties on noncompliant states.</p><p>However, the DCRA did not require reporting for nonfatal interactions. In the absence of such a mandate, the FBI has been partnering with local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement to set up a system for national data collection about nonlethal incidents. Comey himself had repeatedly advocated for a more comprehensive use-of-force database, as he called the lack of national data on the use of force “embarrassing and ridiculous.” </p><p>The second initiative is a change in the agency’s primary crime reporting system. For years, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program has played this role, but five years down the road, the agency plans to replace it with the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).</p><p>Although the UCR system keeps track of the number of homicides, armed robberies, aggravated assaults, and other crimes, agency officials say it does not go far enough in collecting information that could give indications of why crimes occur, and what can be done to prevent them. </p><p>In contrast to the UCR, the NIBRS offers a fuller picture of incidents of crime, with information about what exactly transpired, demographic information about the people involved, the relationship between the perpetrators and victims, and specific location and time coordinates. </p><p>But as of a few months ago, only roughly a third of law enforcement agencies were reporting into NIBRIS. The FBI’s goal is to have all enforcement agencies doing so by 2021, if not sooner. To help lead the way, the FBI has started to publish more data from its field offices about such offenses as human trafficking, hate crimes, and cyber intrusions.</p><p>“Information that is accurate, reliable, complete, and timely will help all of us learn where we have problems and how to get better,” Comey said. ​ ​</p>GP0|#21788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f;L0|#021788f65-8908-49e8-9957-45375db8bd4f|National Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465 on Empty<p>​In this age of overload, with organizations trying to do more with less, employees buried in information, and devices that call for round-the-clock urgency, burnout is a malady ripe for our times. Burnout can strike even the most productive workers and the most consistent performers, as well as those who seem to have the greatest capacity for hard work, experts say. </p><p>One reason burnout is such a pernicious problem is that it does not have to be total for its effects to be devastating.</p><p>“Burnout tends to plateau rather than peak,” says Paula Davis-Laack, specialist in burnout prevention programs, founder and CEO of the Stress and Resilience Institute, and author of Addicted To Busy: Your Blueprint for Burnout Prevention. “Burnout exists on a continuum. You don’t have to be completely mentally broken down and barely able to get out of bed to feel major effects.”</p><p>In other words, employees suffering mid-level burnout may still be able to power through and complete an adequate amount of work by sheer force of will, but their partially depleted state greatly hinders their performance and productivity, and it keeps them from realizing their full potential. </p><p>“That can go on for months, or even years, depending on the person’s work ethic,” says management expert Brady Wilson, cofounder of Juice Inc. and author of Beyond Engagement and other business performance books. </p><p>In a field like security, workers can be especially vulnerable to burnout, given the continual pressure and stress that go into protecting people and assets, and the high stakes involved if a breach does occur. </p><p>“Constant job pressure, especially when some of the factors are out of your control like they are with security, is definitely one of the causes of burnout in employees,” says Carlos Morales, vice president of global sales, engineering, and operations at Arbor Networks, which specializes in network security. </p><p>The consequences of burnout are varied; in some cases, they involve serious health issues. Davis-Laack, who became a specialist in the field after burning out as a practicing attorney, says she experienced weekly panic attacks and a few stomachaches that were so painful they sent her to the emergency room. Coronary disease, depression, and alcohol abuse are other possible consequences. </p><p>For the employer, burnout can significantly compromise workplace quality, causing more absenteeism, turnover, accident risk, and cynicism, while lowering morale and commitment and reducing willingness among workers to help others.</p><p>Fortunately, in many cases burnout can either be avoided, with deft management and a supportive organization, or significantly alleviated using various strategic methods. But like most maladies, it must be understood before it can be properly addressed. ​</p><h4>Symptoms and Conditions</h4><p>Burnout occurs when the demands people face on the job outstrip the resources they possess to meet them. Psychologists who study burnout as a condition divide it into it three dimensions: exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment.</p><p>When the first aspect—exhaustion—hits, the employee may feel emotionally, physically, and cognitively depleted. This often spurs feelings of diminished powers; challenges that were formerly manageable can seem insurmountable. As Davis-Laack describes her own experience of this condition: “Every curveball seems like a crisis.”</p><p>When depersonalization occurs, an employee may start to feel alienated from his or her own job, and more cynical and resentful toward the organization. Work and its mission lose meaning; feelings of going-through-the-motions increase. Detached and numb, the employee tries to plow ahead. </p><p>Exhaustion and depersonalization often combine to produce the third component of reduced personal accomplishment. As Wilson explains, the depleted employee possesses considerably less “executive function,” or the ability to focus, self-regulate, connect the dots between ideas, strategize, analyze, execute smoothly, and follow through—all of which can be thought of as “the power tools of innovation.” </p><p>“Nuanced thinking and value-added thinking are the first to go when employees are exhausted,” he says. “Instead, they rely on duct-tape fixes, reactivity, firefighting. They don’t get to the root causes of problems and issues.” </p><p>The state of mind that burnout can elicit sometimes leads to self-blame, where the employee feels that he or she is professionally inadequate. But that is unfair, says Davis-Laack: “I don’t want individual workers to feel that it’s all their fault.” </p><p>The root causes of burnout, she explains, are usually a product of what employees bring to the table—work ethic, how closely they tie work to self-worth, their level of perfectionism—and how the organization itself functions, which can be an important factor. </p><p>Understanding key organizational conditions, experts say, will help managers maintain a culture that protects employees from burning out. One of these conditions involves what the organization chooses to reward. </p><p>Wilson explains this as follows. For many years, many organizations stressed the importance of keeping employees engaged. But the definition of engagement has shifted, so that many firms now define engaged workers as those with clear dedication and commitment, who come to work early and stay late. “What’s missing from this definition is passion, enthusiasm, verve, and spirit,” he says. </p><p>When engagement is so defined, increased effort, such as working more hours and taking on more projects, is rewarded. But simply increasing hours at the office does not produce high performance, Wilson says. </p><p>“We get our epiphanies in the shower—we don’t get them when we are determined and gritting our teeth around a board room table. It’s not effort that produces brilliance, it’s energy,” he explains. But sometimes, the more-rewards-for-more-work philosophy can function as an unintentional incentive to burn out.</p><p>The organization’s day-to-day working conditions are also a crucial here. Research has found that two factors can be deadly in sapping an employee’s resources, according to Davis-Laack. </p><p>One is role conflict and ambiguity, which can occur when employees are never clear on exactly what is expected of them, and on what part they should be playing in active projects. “That’s very wearing on people,” she says. </p><p>Another is unfairness, which is often related to office politics. This can include favoritism, failure to recognize contributions, being undermined, or dealing with the demands of never-satisfied supervisors.</p><p>Such stressful conditions push some employees into “gas guzzling” energy mode, because they require so much emotional effort just to cope with them, Wilson says. </p><p>“Substances generated by stress, such as cortisol and adrenaline, have a beautiful utilitarian use—to get us out of trouble, to keep us safe,” he explains. “But we are not as productive when we have a brain that is bathed in those things day in and day out.”  ​</p><h4>Detection</h4><p>Although it is vital for managers to strive to maintain a positive office culture, it’s also important to recognize that burnout can happen even in the healthiest of environments. Given this, Morales encourages attempts at early detection.  </p><p>“As a manager or executive, it is important to first note the factors that tend to cause burnout even before employees begin to show signs,” he says. “This gives you the opportunity to address issues proactively with employees.” </p><p>These factors, he explains, include a very travel-heavy schedule (50 percent or more of total work time); consistently logging work weeks of 60-plus hours; unrelenting expectations of working off-hours and on weekends; and constant deadline time pressure. </p><p>But since early detection is not always successful or even possible in some cases, managers should also be looking for common signs of burnout that their employees might be exhibiting. Morales advises security managers to look for combinations of the following characteristics that are different from usual behaviors:</p><ul><li><p> General lack of energy and enthusiasm around job functions and projects.<br></p></li><li><p> Extreme sensitivity and irritability towards coworkers, management, and work situations.<br></p></li><li><p> Constant signs of stress and anxiety.<br></p></li><li><p>Significant changes in social patterns with coworkers.<br></p></li><li><p>Sharp drop in quantity and timeliness of output.​<br></p></li></ul><p>When looking for signs of burnout, it’s important for a manager to have a high degree of familiarity with the employee in question, a familiarity which is a byproduct of a strong manager-staff relationship. </p><p>“You’ve got to know your people,” Davis-Laack says. “When someone seems more checked out and disengaged than usual, if you know your people well enough, you can spot it.” ​</p><h4>Treatment</h4><p>When it becomes clear that an employee is suffering from burnout, managers have several options for treatment and alleviation, experts say. Morales says he believes that managers must first come to an understanding of the underlying factors, so that they can be addressed.   </p><p>“If there is a workload issue, a manager may be able to spread out the workload with other workers to alleviate the issue,” he says. “It’s important to let the employees know that this is being done to gain more scale, and to reinforce that they are doing a good job.”</p><p>Indeed, crushing workloads are now common in many workplaces, experts say, as many companies are actively cost cutting while attempting to raise productivity and output. And for employees who work with data, such as security employees who use analytics, benchmarks, or some form of metrics, the information explosion is requiring more and more staff hours to keep up with the processing and analysis. Managers must be cognizant of this, Davis-Laack says. </p><p>“If you do nothing but pile work on people—well, people are not robots and they are not computers. They are going to wear out,” she explains.</p><p>To combat this, managers should employ a strategic and honest operations analysis, she advises. The department may be generating more output with increasing workloads, but burnout and turnover risk is also increasing, as is the likelihood of costly mistakes. Is it worth the risk? Hiring additional help or outsourcing some tasks may be cheaper in the long run than the costs due to turnover and errors. </p><p>When a department conducts a strategic review of operations, the focus is often on fixing glitches in process, experts say. A focus on reducing workload is less common, but when it is adopted, it often reveals that certain time-consuming tasks are unnecessary.</p><p>If the burnout is caused by a stressful job function, such as a security position in which the worker is protecting assets of great value, the manager can discuss the situation with the employee and ensure that support is available, Morales says. “This may help them feel less alone or helpless in situations,” he says.   </p><p>Another key strategy for managers is to add extra focus and energy to the resources part of the puzzle, Davis-Laack says. “Help them to build up their energy bank account, so they are not always feeling depleted.” </p><p>She offers five ways for managers to do so:  </p><ul><li><p> Maintain and ensure high-quality relationships between managers and staff members, and between team members themselves. This fosters a healthy and safe environment where problems can be discussed and addressed.  <br></p></li><li><p> Whenever possible, give team members some decision authority. This gives them a sense of autonomy and strength when dealing with issues, and helps avoid feelings of powerlessness. <br></p></li><li><p> Follow the FAST system of respectful feedback—give frequent, accurate, specific, and timely feedback. This helps employees make tweaks and adjustments, and lets them know they are on the right course.  <br></p></li><li><p> Demonstrate that you have the employees’ backs, and always be willing to go to bat for them. Don’t point fingers or complain to higher ups when mistakes are made. This is crucial in building trust.  <br></p></li><li><p> Identify and encourage skills that will help your team members build resilience. These will vary depending on the specific job and situation, but include any skill or resource that can be used when challenges arise, as well as those that help manage stress.  ​<br></p></li></ul><p>In working toward the previous point, managers may want to brainstorm with staff to find ways to make everyone more resourceful. For instance, managers could periodically check in with staff members to determine the team’s overall level of resources, so they can replenish them when they’re low.</p><p>Indeed, soliciting solutions from staff is an excellent practice for managers, because it shows they are partnering with employees, not parenting them, Wilson says. The parenting style of management assumes that the manager has knowledge that the worker will never have, and it sets up the employee for helplessness. The partnering style cultivates the employees’ decision-making skills, so they can skillfully meet their own needs. ​</p><h4>Touchy Subject</h4><p>Burnout can be a sensitive subject. Some workers attach great self-worth to their productivity and performance, and do not like to concede that they are struggling. </p><p>“It is very difficult for some high performers to admit that their engagement is lacking. There’s a sense of judgment associated with that,” Wilson says. </p><p>Some of these workers truly are burned out despite their failure to admit it, and they may be in a precarious state. “I have seen cases where the hardest and most productive workers will not admit to burnout,” Morales says. “In these situations, burnout occurs quite suddenly, without many of the behavioral warning signs.”</p><p>Other employees fear that admitting burnout is disclosing a weakness, one that could prevent them from future promotions or ultimately cost them their job. “They like their work and they don’t want to change jobs, or </p><p>they can’t change jobs because they have monetary obligations,” Davis-Laack says. </p><p>Here, management can go a long way by being proactive and soliciting feedback from workers regarding their state of mind. “It’s important to have regular discussions with employees about the impact of the workload on them personally, and give them every opportunity to talk through their situation, and vent if necessary,” Morales says. “It’s important for management to recognize the potential for burnout and approach employees proactively to discuss it. It provides employees a safe environment in which to talk through the situation.”</p><p>In these situations, a manager can approach an employee with a proactive goal—how can workload and workplace environment be shaped so that the employee is energized in the office, and still has energy left at the end of the day and on weekends for a life outside of work, Wilson explains.  </p><p>Using this framework, Wilson adds that it is often easier for the manager to then ask, “What’s getting in the way of that? Is it bureaucratic interference? Is there too much on your plate? Is there bullying going on, or other workplace environment problems?”  ​</p><h4>More Recognition</h4><p>But while burnout is still a sensitive subject among some workers, there is also a growing recognition that it is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, experts say. This may be partly driven by recent research in fields like healthcare and finance, where findings suggest that burnout and overwork are causing costly mistakes that are detrimental to a company’s bottom line. </p><p>Moreover, more business leaders see that the problem, if left unchecked, will just get worse in the future, due to factors such as globalization and a web of technology that is becoming more and more complex. “The perfect storm is upon us,” Wilson says.</p><p>Davis-Laack says she is heartened by the fact that the burnout issue, which was frequently dismissed as too “soft” to be a subject at business conferences, is appearing on more agendas. </p><p>“It’s finally starting to get attention across different professions and different sectors,” she says. “Managers are taking it more seriously.” ​​</p>GP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465 Power of Physical Security<p>​<span style="line-height:1.5em;">A</span><span style="line-height:1.5em;">ny utilities security expert can effortlessly recite the details. In April 2013, someone snuck into an underground vault near a freeway in San Jose, California, and cut several telephone cables. Then, 30 minutes later, snipers shot at an electrical substation in Metcalf, California, for almost 20 minutes, knocking out 17 transformers that funnel power to Silicon Valley, before fleeing the scene and evading capture. </span></p><p>A major blackout was prevented by rerouting power around the downed station, but the attack caused more than $15 million in damage and brought physical threats to the electric grid to the forefront of discussions about the security of the United States’ critical infrastructure. It quickly became clear that cyberattacks were not the only threat to the U.S. power supply. </p><p>Two years have passed since the incident, and, while the snipers remain at large, the utility industry is taking steps to deter any future attacks.</p><p>“Because the grid is so critical to all aspects of our society and economy, protecting its reliability and resilience is a core responsibility of everyone who works in the electric industry,” said acting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) chairman Cheryl LaFleur in a statement in March 2014. (LaFleur was named permanent chairman in July 2014.) Following LaFleur’s statement, FERC directed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to develop new standards requiring owners and operators of the bulk-power system to address risks due to physical security threats and vulnerabilities.</p><p>The FERC order asked NERC to create a standard to identify and protect transmission stations, substations, and associated primary control centers that could cause widespread outages if compromised. </p><p>From those instructions, a 10-person drafting committee created the CIP-014 standard that focuses on transmission assessments and physical security. The standard requires transmission station and substation owners to perform a risk assessment of their systems to identify facilities that could have a critical impact on the power grid.</p><p>The order also requires owners and operators to develop and implement a security plan to address potential threats and vulnerabilities.​</p><h4>Participants</h4><p>The electric system is made up of three components: generators—coal fired, biomass, solar, and wind—that produce electricity; transmission—taking the electricity from the power source and moving it somewhere, such as a substation; and distribution—power moving from a facility to the meter in a home, business, or other building.</p><p>When electricity moves from a generation station, such as a wind farm, it goes to a substation that normally has transformers that decrease the voltage, often from 500 to 230 kilovolts (kV). From there, the substation transmits the power to another substation, which usually lowers the voltage even further to 115 kV so it can be used in residential and commercial facilities. </p><p>CIP-014 applies to transmission substations in the electric system, not the generators or the distribution stations. However, it doesn’t apply to all 55,000 transmission substations in the country, explains Allan Wick, CPP, PCI, PSP, a member of the standard drafting committee. </p><p>Instead, the standard relies on categories that determine which facilities must comply with the standard. The standard takes effect if a system that is “rendered inoperable or damaged as a result of a physical attack could result in instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading with an interconnection,” Wick explains. </p><p>Because of these criteria, CIP-014 applies to transmission facilities that operate at 500 kV or higher, or single facilities that operate between 200 kV and 499 kV where the substation is connected at 200 kV or higher voltage to three or more other transmission stations that have an “aggregate weighted value” higher than 3,000 kV. </p><p>This means that few transmission substations will have to comply with standards. “By the time you use those criteria against what’s in the standard, [CIP-014] will only apply to 200 or fewer substations in the United States,” Wick says. The standard also applies to the control centers that operate those 200 substations—which are owned by roughly 30 different companies. </p><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre;"> </span></div><h4>Preparation</h4><p>FERC approved CIP-014 in November 2014, officially kickstarting the compliance process that owners need to complete by the first implementation date in October 2015. Their first responsibility is to perform an initial risk assessment (Requirement 1) to identify the transmission stations and substations the standard may apply to. Owners then have to identify the primary control centers that operationally control each transmission station or substation identified in the risk assessment.</p><p>Once these steps have been completed, owners will have 90 days to have an unaffiliated third party verify their assessments (R2). This third party can be a registered planning coordinator, transmission planner, reliability coordinator, or an entity that has transmission planning or analysis experience. </p><p>If the third party adds or removes a transmission station or substation from the original assessment, owners then have an additional 60 days to modify their risk assessments or document the basis for not making the appropriate changes.</p><p>Additionally, if the primary control centers identified are owned by a company other than the transmission station, that owner needs to be notified (R3) within seven days following the third-party verification that it has operational control of the primary control center.</p><p>After the initial risk assessment has been completed, transmission owners that are covered by the standard will perform subsequent assessments at least once every 30 months. Transmission owners that are not covered by the standard are also required by law to perform assessments, but only once every 60 months.​</p><h4>Physical Security</h4><p>Once the transmission analysis and identification have been completed, owners are required to conduct evaluations of the potential threats and vulnerabilities of a physical attack (R4) to each of their respective transmission stations, substations, and primary control centers.</p><p>These evaluations should include unique characteristics of the identified and verified transmission stations, substations, and control centers. For example, characteristics could include whether the substation is rural or urban, if it’s near a major highway, or if it’s in a valley. </p><p>For instance, the substation could be “set down in a small valley, so there are areas around it [from which] a shooter could either shoot the transformers or even use a rocket-propelled grenade to shoot something into it,” Wick explains.</p><p>Owners also need to detail any history of attacks on similar facilities, taking into account the “frequency, geographic proximity, and severity of past physical security related events,” according to the standard. CIP-014 asks owners to include intelligence or threat warnings they’ve received from law enforcement, the Electric Reliability Organization, the Electricity Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center, and government agencies from either the United States or Canada.</p><p>Once these evaluations have been completed, and no more than 120 days after R2 is completed, owners are required to develop and implement a documented security plan and timeline that covers their respective transmission stations, substations, and primary control centers (R5). </p><p>Within the security plan, owners should include law enforcement contact and coordination information, provisions to evaluate evolving physical threats and their corresponding security measures, and resiliency or security measures designed “collectively to deter, detect, delay, assess, communicate, and respond to potential physical threats and vulnerabilities identified” during R4.</p><p>The drafting committee chose this language specifically, Wick says, because “you can’t just do one of those—you need to put them together as a group to ‘deter, detect, delay,’ because those are the primary components…in a layered security program.”</p><p>The committee was also purposely less prescriptive about methods owners can use as part of their security measures. “We tried to build in maximum flexibility to arrive at the same end state for everybody,” Wick says. For instance, to delay someone “you can do that several different ways. You could have a 20-foot -high wall with razor tape, or you could do it with a chain link fence; there are so many options that you could use to mitigate the threats and vulnerabilities that are identified in R4.”</p><p>This nonprescriptive method has faced some criticism, but many others think it’s beneficial. The regulators “are not really telling you to go out and spend all sorts of money on increased cameras, spending a lot of money on fences,” says Rich Hyatt, PCI, manager of security services for Tucson Electric Power. “They’re kind of promoting that you should harden up your site, like vegetation removal, signage…it’s not like the government’s coming in and telling you to spend $5 million per substation.”</p><p>The committee is also allowing owners to take a twofold approach by giving them the opportunity to build in resiliency on the operational side and protect their assets with security measures.</p><p>For example, Tucson Electric Power is increasing its resiliency by hardening its substations, says Hyatt, who’s also a member of the ASIS International Utilities Council. This is important because sometimes transformers malfunction. “There’s always the likelihood of sabotage, but we also have a threat of malfunction or weather-related issues, or manmade stuff that could go into a transformer being taken out,” he explains.</p><p>Hyatt is also working with substation employees to improve emergency communication, another issue addressed in the standard. “We’re also engaging our…substation folks to beef up their emergency response and have additional spare parts in their inventory so they can respond if a transformer got shot out—we could get it back online quicker,” he explains.</p><p>However, Jake Parker—director of government relations for the Security Industry Association (SIA)—says physically protecting assets is the better way to go for utilities security. “We think that physical security measures are much more cost effective because the cost of hardening the structure can also be extremely steep,” he explains. </p><p>Once owners have drafted and implemented their physical security plans, they then need to be verified again by a third party reviewer (R6) within 90 days. This reviewer can be an entity or organization with physical security experience in the electric industry and whose review staff: has at least one member who holds either a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) or Physical Security Professional (PSP) certification; is approved by the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO); is a government agency with physical security expertise; or is an entity or organization with law enforcement, government, or military physical security expertise.</p><p>The ASIS certifications requirement was included after a review of existing applicable certifications. “By holding one of those two certifications, it shows that you know what you’re talking about on physical security,” Wick explains. “We did reviews of any certification that had physical security requirements, and these were the only two that were suitable.”</p><p>If the reviewer recommends changes to the R4 evaluation or the security plan, owners then have 60 days to comply with those recommendations or document why they are not modifying their plans.</p><h4>Penalties</h4><p>CIP-014 has an aggressive implementation timetable; Parker says he expects most utilities to have their physical security plans in place by spring 2016. There are no penalties for owners who do not comply with the new standard, although owners who do comply are required to keep documentation as evidence to show compliance for three years. NERC is responsible for enforcement.</p><p>Despite the lack of penalties and the limited number of transmission stations and substations covered by the standard, many companies say the standard has inspired them. CIP-014 has given companies guidance on increasing their physical security, according to Parker.</p><p>“We’re seeing, given the current environment and response to what happened at Metcalf…that utilities are finding it easier to justify security improvements across the board via rate increases,” he explains.</p><p>The rate increases are the funding mechanism utilities can use to pay for physical security improvements. They can do this by bringing proposals to their boards and justifying small rate increases “to cover the cost of the security upgrades because of the standard, but also because of the need to improve physical security of the electric grid overall,” Parker adds. </p><p>Hyatt agrees, saying that the industry is doing a “really good job” on being proactive in “policing up” and increasing the use of best security practices. The incident at Metcalf, he adds, has “actually increased security’s perception among executives where we work that physical security is just as important as cybersecurity.” ​</p>GP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465