By: Tony Sleva, SEA Consulting Services,
It goes without saying that highly engineered systems, such as the electrical power grid, are able to tolerate a wide variety of component failures without collapsing. Historically, engineered systems have only failed when unlikely events combined with unforeseen conditions occur.
To the layman, the resilience of the power grid creates the impression that the power grid should not fail. To the owner, the fact that electrical service is so reliable makes it difficult to justify improvements that are unnecessary when past failures are considered.
Actual Unlikely Events
When dealing with unlikely events, such as widespread blackouts, it may be necessary to consider notable failures of other highly engineered systems in addition to other blackouts that have occurred. Consider some of the unlikely events that occurred in our lifetimes:
- Three Mile Island Accident
- Space Shuttle Challenger Accident
- World Trade Center Attack
- August 14, 2003 Blackout
Then consider the consequences of these unlikely events. Individual and company reputations were tarnished, industries were drastically changed, regulations were promulgated and implemented, etc. After each of these unlikely events, people demanded change. Business, as usual, was not on anyone’s mind.
Have We Done Enough?
This leads to the question “Have we done everything that a reasonable person would do to assure ourselves that a prolonged blackout that affects a good deal of the United States is among the most unlikely events that can be postulated?” We’ve had three years since 9/11. Are we satisfied with the changes we’ve made?
Surely, technology has always been implemented to detect electrical failures, to protect against adverse consequences, and to secure the system to enable continued operation. But, have sufficient security measures been implemented to detect vandalism, sabotage and intrusion before major electrical failures occur? Have facilities been hardened so that the response to intruders and saboteurs is quick enough to prevent unacceptable loss of redundant components or facilities?
How Do We Critique Power Systems?
These are tough questions, but they need to be answered. The first step is to rank facilities as to their importance to continued operation of the national electrical power grid. Do you know how the importance of your facilities compare to each other and to other companies’ facilities? Have you considered fundamental electrical characteristics of your system and of neighboring power systems?
The next step is to assess visibility, layout and redundancy of critical facilities. For the most critical facilities, on-site inspections should be performed to verify the “hardness” of each subcomponent and to verify response time when intruders or saboteurs are detected. Basic items that need to be considered include: missing locks, missing keys, separate facility keys, and easy facility access over roofs or under fences.
After results are tabulated and rankings are developed, do you have a method to compare “best in class” to individual facility results?
Vulnerability Ratings
The methodology used by SEA Consulting Services to evaluate facility vulnerability assigns numerical ratings to a variety of items such as visibility, voltage level, component redundancy, intrusion detection, and security personnel response. Then a score, on a scale of 0 to 200, is tabulated for each facility. A score of 50 indicates adequate facility security. A score of 100 indicates marginally acceptable security and improvements can be planned. A score of 150 indicates that immediate improvements are warranted. A score of more than 150 indicates that substantial facility redesign may be needed to address security concerns. Our experience is that after evaluation, vulnerability ratings, at facilities whose scores are high, can be significantly reduced to at least a marginally acceptable level with relatively simple enhancements.
One Last Thought
Years ago, facilities were designed with business and engineering criteria, such as least cost and ease of maintenance. That philosophy needs to be reviewed in light of today’s reality. Our thoughts are that vulnerability assessments can identify high risk facilities and provide a sensible approach to risk reduction. A thorough, independent inspection may uncover undesirable conditions at your most critical facilities.
Tony Sleva is Manager – Electrical Engineering at SEA Consulting Services. Tony can be contacted by phone 609-409-9790 or by e-mail tsleva@seacorporate.com SEA’s website address is www.seacorporate.com
Circle 151 on the Reader Service Card
Thermal Line Rating System from The Valley Group
The Valley Group, Inc. introduces the IntelliCAT™ System - a complete turn-key solution to support operational use of real-time thermal capacity ratings for transmission lines. This information helps operators make better informed decisions to manage contingencies, avoiding costly re-dispatching and load shedding, and allows utilities to safely maximize utilization of their existing transmission assets.
Available as either a substation-based or server-based solution, the IntelliCAT system collects data from CAT-1™ monitoring units installed on the transmission line in addition to line load data. Line capacity, conductor temperature, and sag information is provided to the EMS database via either an ICCP or DNP 3.0 connection in the form of traditional analog and status values for display on existing operator consoles.
The IntelliCAT system monitors data quality and system health to ensure consistently reliable information. The system also serves as a platform for advanced line monitoring options such as transient analysis and short-term emergency rating analysis.
The Valley Group, Inc., 871 Ethan Allen Hwy, Ridgefield, CT 06877 IEEE PSCE Booth #111
Circle 152 on the Reader Service Card
