Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제54권7호
  • /
  • Pages.2467-2474
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Thinking multiculturality in the age of hybrid threats: Converging cyber and physical security in Akkuyu nuclear power plant

  • Bicakci, A. Salih (Kadir Has University, International Relations Department) ;
  • Evren, Ayhan Gucuyener (Kadir Has University, International Relations Department)
  • 투고 : 2021.04.06
  • 심사 : 2022.01.27
  • 발행 : 2022.07.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) are the most protected facilities among all critical infrastructures (CIs). In addition to physical security, cyber security becomes a significant concern for NPPs since swift digitalization and overreliance on computer-based systems in the facility operations transformed NPPs into targets for cyber/physical attacks. Despite technical competencies, humans are still the central component of a resilient NPP to develop an effective nuclear security culture. Turkey is one of the newcomers in the nuclear energy industry, and Turkish Akkuyu NPP has a unique model owned by an international consortium. Since Turkey has limited experience in nuclear energy industry, specific multinational and multicultural characteristics of Turkish Akkuyu NPP also requires further research in terms of the Facility's prospective nuclear security. Yet, the link between "national cultures" and "nuclear security" is underestimated in nuclear security studies. By relying on Hofstede's national culture framework, our research aims to address this gap and explore possible implications of cross-national cultural differences on nuclear security. To cope with security challenges in the age of hybrid threats, we propose a security management model which addresses the need for cyber-physical security integration to cultivate a robust nuclear security culture in a multicultural working environment.

키워드

과제정보

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

참고문헌

  1. The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, Nuclear Energy and the Current Security Environment in the Era of Hybrid Threats, October 2019. Helsinki, https://www.hybridcoe.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Nuclear-Research-Report-2019_web.pdf.
  2. World Institute for Nuclear Security, The State of Nuclear Security in 2020, 06 June 2020. Vienna, https://www.wins.org/document/the-state-of-nuclearsecurity-2020/.
  3. B. Taebi, M. Mayer, The Russian Nuclear Energy Proposal: an Offer You Can't Refuse, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 5 June 2015. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/russian-nuclear-energy-proposaloffer-you-cant-refuse.
  4. E. Lecavalier, Russian nuclear power: convenience at what cost? Bull. At. Sci. (16 October 2015). https://thebulletin.org/2015/10/russian-nuclear-powerconvenience-at-what-cost/.
  5. IAEA Division of Nuclear Security, Nuclear Security Series Glossary Version 1.3, November 2015. Vienna, https://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/security/nuclear-security-series-glossary-v1-3.pdf.
  6. I. Khripunov, Nuclear Security Culture: the State of Play, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, May 2018. http://spia.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/INSEN-TEXTBOOK-Pages-1-8-NS24-Nuclear-Security-CultureTextbook.pdf.
  7. I. Khripunov, A Roadmap for Nuclear Security Culture, The 1540 Compass, Winter, 2016, pp. 31-35. No: 11, http://spia.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Compass_11-Winter2016.pdf.
  8. I. Khripunov, Nuclear safety vs security: can the two cultures be harmonized? Bull. At. Sci. (6 July 2018). https://thebulletin.org/2018/07/nuclear-safety-vssecurity-can-the-two-cultures-be-harmonized/.
  9. D. Gupta, E. Bajramovic, Security culture for nuclear facilities, in: Proceedings of the International Nuclear Science, Technology and Engineering Conference Proceedings, vol. 1799, American Institutes of Physics, 2017, 050014, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4972948.
  10. P. Carroll, Security culture: a personal perspective from the United Kingdom, in: N. Ischenko, J. Holmes (Eds.), Nuclear Security Culture: from National Best Practices to International Standards, I. Khripunov, IOS Press, Amsterdam, September 2007, pp. 23-30.
  11. C. Packer, Relationship of management systems, human performance, and security culture, in: N. Ischenko, J. Holmes (Eds.), Nuclear Security Culture: from National Best Practices to International Standards, I. Khripunov, IOS Press, Amsterdam, September 2007, pp. 43-53.
  12. I. Khripunov, J. Holmes, D. Nikonov, M. Katsva, Nuclear Security Culture: the Case of Russia, Center for International Trade and Security The University of Georgia, December, 2004. https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/analysis_cits_111804.pdf.
  13. UK Office of Nuclear Regulation, Maintance of a Robust Security Culture, UK Office of Nuclear Regulation, March 2020. https://www.onr.org.uk/operational/tech_asst_guides/cns-tast-gd-2.1.pdf.
  14. IAEA, Safety and Security Culture, Vienna, https://www.iaea.org/topics/safetyand-security-culture, 2019.
  15. IAEA, Nuclear Security Culture: Implementing Guide, September 2008. Vienna, https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1347_web.pdf.
  16. IAEA, Self-assessment of Nuclear Security Culture in Facilities and Activities-Technical Guidance, November 2017. Vienna, https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB1761_web.pdf.
  17. World Institute for Nuclear Security, Nuclear Security Culture Version 3.1, January 2019. Vienna, https://www.wins.org/document/1-4-nuclear-securityculture/.
  18. C.C. Chen, B.D. Medlin, R. Shaw, A cross-cultural investigation of situational information security awareness programs, Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur. 16 (4) (2008) 360-376, https://doi.org/10.1108/09685220810908787.
  19. M. Tang, M. Li, T. Zhang, The impacts of organizational culture on information security: a case study, Inf. Technol. Manag. 17 (2) (2016) 179-186, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0252-2.
  20. J.C.I. Trajano, A policy analysis of nuclear safety culture and security culture in East Asia: examining best practices and challenges, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 51 (6) (2019) 1696-1707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.04.014.
  21. D. Shoemaker, A. Kohnke, K. Sigler, How to Build a Cyber-Resilient Organization, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2019.
  22. G. Anthes, Digital Defense, Computer World, 22 December 2003, https://www.computerworld.com/article/2573633/digital-defense.html.
  23. S. Islam, M. Ahmed, S. Islam, A conceptual system architecture for countering the civilian unmanned aerial vehicles threat to nuclear facilities, Inter. J. Critic. Infrastruct. Protect. 23 (C) (2018) 139-149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2018.10.003.
  24. S. Eggers, A novel approach for analyzing the nuclear supply chain cyberattack surface, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (3) (2020) 879-887, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.08.021.
  25. G. Loukas, Cyber-Physical Attacks: A Growing Invisible Threat, Elsevier Inc, Waltham MA, 2015.
  26. S.M. Rahman, S.E. Donahue, Convergence of corporate and information security, Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Secur. 7 (1) (2010) 63-68. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.1950v1.pdf.
  27. D. Cherkashyn, Balancing cyber-physical defense in the energy sector: nuclear energy lessons learned, in: G. Gluschke, M. Macori, M.H. Cas, in (Eds.), Cybersecurity Policies and Critical Infrastructure Protection, Institute for Security and Safety, Institute for Security and Safety) Press, Potsdam, 2018, pp. 331-341.
  28. A. Aleem, A. Wakefield, M. Button, Addressing the weakest link: implementing converged security, Secur. J. 26 (3) (2013) 236-248, https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2013.14.
  29. K. Zetter, Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World's First Digital Weapon, Crown Publishers, New York, 2014.
  30. M. Molnar, V. Istvan, The Cyber-Physical Security Power Grid, IEEE Smart Grid November 2019 ENewsletter, 2019. https://smartgrid.ieee.org/newsletters/november-2019/the-cyber-physical-security-of-the-power-grid.
  31. IAEA, Developing Regulations and Associated Administrative Measures for Nuclear Security: Implementing Guide, 2018. Vienna, https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1762_web.pdf.
  32. Turkish Official Gazette, Regulation on Management System in Nuclear Facilities, 8 April 2017. No. 30032, https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/04/20170408-5.htm.
  33. Turkish Official Gazette, Regulation for Physical Protection of Nuclear Facilities and Nuclear Substances, 22 May 2012. No. 28300, https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/05/20120522-7.htm.
  34. N.P.P. Zaporizhzhia, Organizational Structure, 2022. https://www.npp.zp.ua/en/about-us/structure.
  35. P. Ghemawat, S. Reiche, National cultural differences and multinational business, in: P. Ghemawat (Ed.), The Laws of Globalization and Business Applications, Uk, Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 239-279.
  36. Hofstede Insights, Compare Countries, 2022. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/russia,turkey/.
  37. G. Hofstede, Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations, second ed., Sage Publications, California, 2001.
  38. G. Hofstede, Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model, Online Read. Psychol. Culture 2 (1) (2011) 3-26, https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014.
  39. Galina Balykina, Cultural Dimensions and Modern Russian Business (October 21, 2013). Novekedes Es Egyensuly. A 2013. Junius 11-i Kautz Gyula Emlek-konferencia Valogatott Tanulmanyai, Gyor: Universitas Gyor Kht., 2014, pp. 87-95, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2342954.
  40. T. Dols, S.A.J. Gilbert, Exploring the influence of national cultures on noncompliance behavior, Commun. IIMA 10 (3) (2010) 11-31. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/ciima/vol10/iss3/2.
  41. E.K. Pellegrini, T.A. Scandura, Leaderemember exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture:An empirical investigation, J. Int. Bus. Stud. 37 (2006) 264-279, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400185.
  42. R.E. Crossler, A.C. Johnston, P.B. Lowry, Q. Hud, M. Warkentin, R. Baskerville, Future directions for behavioral information security research, Comput. Secur. 32 (2013) 90-101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2012.09.010.
  43. Hofstede Insights, National Culture, 2022. https://hi.hofstede-insights.com/national-culture.
  44. I. Akiner, W. Tijhuis, Cultural variables and the link between managerial characteristics in construction industry: reflections from Turkish and Dutch examples, in: International Conference on Multinational Construction Projects: Securing High Performance through Cultural Awareness and Dispute Avoidance, November 21-23, Shangai, 2008. An Also See; I. Akiner, Critical Viewpoints on the Management of Conflict in Multi-National Construction Projects, Oganization, Technology and Management in Construction vol. 6, 2014, pp. 1038-1046, https://doi.org/10.5592/otmcj.2014.2.6, 2.
  45. K. Yildirim, Negotiating with managers from Turkey, in: M.A. Khan, N. Ebner (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Cross-Cultural Business Negotiation, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019, pp. 309-328.
  46. A. Mohd, H. Wu, A. Ivan, Y. Xiaohong, L. Ling, L. Xu, Gender difference and employees' cybersecurity behaviors, Comput. Hum. Behav. 69 (2017) 437-443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.040.
  47. M. Coleman, K. Offen, J. Markant, Exercise similarly facilitates men and women's selective attention task response times but differentially affects memory task performance, Front. Psychol. 9 (2018) 1-19, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01405.
  48. G. Hofstede, G.J. Hofstede, M. Minkov, Cultures and Organization: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2010.
  49. J. Carney, Why Integrate Physical and Logical Security? " CISCO, 2011. https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/solutions/industries/docs/gov/pl-security.pdf.