Custom Search
|
|
|
||
 MIL-HDBK-1013/1A
2.4.2.4
Combinations. Combinations of the above guards are also possible.
For example, a roving patrol may be dispatched on an alarm to conduct a
preliminary assessment followed by a full response from a reaction guard if a
real threat presents itself. In this case, the overall response time of the
security system is much longer than if a real-time assessment using on-site
guards or CCTV is provided, or if the initial guard response includes the
full reaction force. The specific guard operating procedures for the
facility of interest shall be established with the help of installation
operational and security personnel on the design team.
2.4.3
Estimating Guard Response Time. The maximum likely response time
required is the sum of those times it takes after an alarm has occurred to
correctly assess that a threat is present, plus the time it takes for a guard
force to arrive at the scene. In this regard, threat assessment may be
accomplished by a CCTV system, or by simply dispatching a guard for direct
observation, with the actual full guard response occurring once a real threat
has been detected. Once the guard types, their locations, and operating
procedures applicable to the facility are established, it is possible to
estimate the likely response time. It is recommended that the maximum likely
time, considering adverse weather conditions or other factors, be used. To
aid in this determination, Public Works may have maps from which response
distances and, thus, response time can be estimated using (conservatively) a
30-mph response speed. Alternatively, simple timing measurements with a stop
watch can be conducted under actual conditions.
2.5
Other Constraints and Requirements. While security engineering is
an important aspect of facility design, it is only a part of the total
project. Project planners and designers concerned with security must also
consider such issues as installation master planning requirements, safety,
fire protection, facility operational and functional issues, energy
conservation, seismic criteria, barrier-free handicapped access, and
aesthetics. Protective measures may actually enhance energy conservation or
seismic survivability, but safety requirements or barrier-free access may
hinder the objectives of the protective system. In general, these
constraints may be unique to a specific asset, site, facility, or entire
installation. Conflicts need to be recognized and priorities established in
the planning programming stage to guide designers toward appropriate and
optimal solutions. Figure 3 provides a checklist of items to be considered
by the design team. These are broadly classified as: (1) political, (2)
financial, (3) regulatory, (4) procedural or operational, and (5) facility-
and site-related.
18
|
 
|
|
|
||
