Future work

Acceptance testing

8.4. The operator should perform acceptance tests to ensure that the PPS measures are fully functional in all aspects of operation and meet design specifications before acceptance. Testing should include all system and subsystem components of the PPS. Acceptance testing is the broadest part of testing, including checking the correct installation of all components and subsystems, and also determining and documenting baselines for performance, operability and function. Acceptance tests are intended to identify any operational and functionality problems that need to be addressed to ensure system operation in accordance with design specifications and requirements. This type of testing is applied to all PPS hardware and software, voice and data communications, lighting, power and backup systems.

8.5. Acceptance testing should be thoroughly planned and documented in an acceptance testing plan that defines the test objectives, scope of testing, approvals for testing, responsibilities, testing approach, fault and data recording, resource specifications and test environment, and describes each planned test. Test plans should be developed to include specifications, a description of the test, initial test conditions, the detailed test procedure, expected results and any special factors.

An effective acceptance test plan depends upon design specifications that are clearly defined, measurable and readily tested.

Operability and functional testing

8.6. Operability and functional testing is intended to ensure that PPS measures, components and subsystems function initially upon installation and continue to function and operate correctly. These tests are conducted routinely to determine significant PPS component or subsystem malfunctions or outages. During operability and functional testing, no attempt is made to defeat the PPS component or subsystem or to determine how well the component works, but only to confirm its operation. For example, guards might be assigned to periodically ensure the metal detection portal is receiving power and to walk through a metal detection portal to determine whether the metal items they normally carry cause a visual and audible alarm, as they should, or to open a door that has a balanced magnetic switch and confirm that an alarm is generated. Operability and functional tests might also be applied to subsystems. For example, a guard patrolling might be assigned to walk into the area monitored by a volumetric intrusion sensor with CCTV to confirm that an alarm is generated. The CAS personnel would determine whether the alarm is received from the sensor, and whether the appropriate camera was activated and is providing a camera image of sufficient quality to determine that a human set off the alarm.

8.7. Operability and functional tests should normally be performed on a relatively frequent schedule (e.g. from once every shift to once per week as appropriate) to ensure continuous operation of components and subsystems. Any problems identified by operability and functional tests should be promptly corrected or compensatory measures implemented until corrective actions are completed.

8.8. Operability and functional tests can be performed manually by a human tester or using remote or self‑testing capabilities. Examples of manual tests include balanced magnetic switch test described above, or a technician inspecting a perimeter after a storm to determine whether sensors or cameras have been damaged or appear to have been moved out of alignment.

8.9. Manual testing of PPS components is strongly preferred. In certain circumstances, however, for example due to staffing limitations or the remoteness of intrusion detection systems, manual testing might not be possible or might be impractical. In such cases, a capability for remote or self‑testing might be used, in which the alarm communication and control system itself triggers a test signal. For example, a self‑test might begin with the intrusion detection system generating a test trigger to a specific sensor at a random time, and the sensor would be expected to respond with an alarm. The intrusion detection system would subsequently check that the alarm occurred within a specified time of the test trigger, and was cleared by the operator within a specified time. Failure to pass a remote or self‑test should produce an alarm message, indicating the possibility of hardware failure or tampering, and this should be investigated.

Remote and self‑test techniques currently available might identify that the sensor is working, but cannot test the sensor’s calibration or alignment, and therefore a remote self‑test should supplement, and not replace, manual testing.

Maintenance and calibration testing

8.10. Maintenance and calibration tests are conducted to determine whether the PPS components and subsystems are correctly installed, aligned and calibrated according to specifications. Such testing would also be conducted as part of, or in conjunction with, initial acceptance testing or following maintenance activities.

For example, a maintenance or calibration test of a metal or radiation detection portal monitor might involve repeatedly walking through the portal with a specified test source to demonstrate that the detector has an acceptable detection probability for that source. Another example might be a trained technician testing a perimeter sensor by walking, running, jumping, climbing or crawling (as appropriate) in the detection area to demonstrate that the sensor provides the required probability of sensing.

8.11. Well designed maintenance and calibration tests will detect whether component performance has deteriorated over time, whether spare parts appear to be defective or whether a component might have been tampered with. Maintenance and calibration tests should be conducted in a consistent fashion and provide repeatable results to ensure that a device passing the test on one day but failing the next indicates some degradation of the device’s performance and not a variation in how the test was conducted. Consistency and repeatability can be achieved by providing a detailed set of procedures and training the tester, or by using an approved testing device that simulates an adversary crossing the sensor (e.g. using a tool to pull the fence fabric with a consistent force to simulate a climber).

On‑site testing

8.12. Since facility design and environmental conditions are facility specific, the operator should conduct on‑site performance testing to establish and validate the values used in assessments of PPS effectiveness (see Section 9). If the facility is operating, detailed coordination is needed between facility operations and security personnel to ensure that protection measures are maintained during the testing period, including where necessary through previously approved compensatory measures. If a deficiency is identified through testing or a protection element is defeated as part of a test (e.g. a fence is successfully cut through), compensatory measures should be implemented and corrective actions initiated immediately.

The compensatory measures should remain in place until corrective actions are completed and evaluated.

USE OF DEDICATED TEST BEDS

8.13. Performance testing on dedicated test beds located at the facility or at another testing location can be used to test the effectiveness of PPS components under a wide range of conditions and against a wide range of tactics. A dedicated test bed allows testing under realistic conditions without affecting facility operations or security. The test bed might include facilities to test interior and exterior PPS systems and infrastructure to support sensor testing, data gathering and data recording. The test bed might include access control systems, delay systems, prohibited item detection sensors, lighting, assessment and power distribution systems, as well as alarm communications, monitoring and recording systems.

8.14. A test bed located at a facility provides the possibility of testing and monitoring PPS measures under facility specific environmental and industrial conditions, to better understand how these factors affect performance and nuisance alarm

rates. Such a test bed can also be used to evaluate physical protection components and subsystems before a facility is built. It is advisable that the components or subsystems be monitored and tested to cover all feasible weather conditions.

8.15. A dedicated test bed might also be used to obtain realistic performance data to assess new technologies and to train personnel for operation and maintenance of the PPS. A test bed can be used to identify facility specific maintenance and calibration tests, and for testing the performance of a barrier or intrusion detection system that cannot be tested on the facility itself due to cost or facility considerations such as personnel safety (e.g. in a high radiation or contaminated area).

8.16. Such tests can provide the data needed to develop specific physical barrier delay times. If these tests are documented properly, the results can be used to develop a data library of PPS element attributes (e.g. barrier delay times) to support the use of similar protection measures at other nuclear facilities within the State without the need to repeat testing. Similarly, barrier delay times can be collected for a range of adversary tactics, such as use of hand tools, power tools, explosives and vehicles, as applicable.