Home Effective physical protection system design and implementation at a radiological facility: an integrated and risk management approach
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Effective physical protection system design and implementation at a radiological facility: an integrated and risk management approach

  • Michael Nii Sanka Ansah ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Boris Pavlovich Stepanov , Paul Attah Amoah and Ephraim Bonah Agyekum
Published/Copyright: December 22, 2022
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Lives are threatened whenever there is an act of theft or destruction against a nuclear and radiological facility thus, physical protection systems are effectively employed to prevent or mitigate loss of valuable assets. Health facilities that provide radiotherapy services have in their facility a temporary storage unit where disused radioactive sources 60Co, 137Cs and 192Ir are kept and this raises concerns for effective physical protection. An integrated physical protection System was considered to consolidate of all sub systems, sensors and elements related to protection system for an effectively secured environment at a radiological facility. Sequence adversary diagram (ASD) was developed to depict the paths that enemies can take to achieve sabotage or stealing objectives and analyze flews in the paths. The approach to this security system effectiveness focuses on using probabilistic statistical methods for risk evaluation considering detection, delays and response. This paper considers the basic and effective elements required for physical protection system for a radiological center and makes risk evaluation as an approach of security system effectiveness which can serve as fundamental guiding principle for decision makers in the establishment of an effective physical protection for a radiological center.


Corresponding author: Michael Nii Sanka Ansah, National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Lenin str., 30, 634050, Tomsk, Russia, E-mail:

Acknowledgment

This paper was performed as part of the TPU development program and the authors express gratitude to nuclear fuel cycle department of National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia, for providing support to this paper.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this article.

References

Andiwijayakusuma, D., Setiadipura, T., Purqon, A., and Su’ud, Z. (2022). The development of EASI-based multi-path analysis code for nuclear security system with variability extension. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 10: 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2022.05.023.Search in Google Scholar

Dai, J., Hu, R., Chen, J., and Cai, Q. (2012). Benefit-cost analysis of security systems for multiple protected assets based on information entropy. Entropy 14: 571–580, https://doi.org/10.3390/e14030571.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, S.J. and Minion, R.R. (2008). Security supervision and management: the theory and practice of asset protection, 3rd ed. Elsevier, Oxford United Kingdom, pp. 1–579.Search in Google Scholar

Durant, D. and Pound, K. (2010). Chapter 15—alarm system fundamentals. In: Ifpo (Ed.), The professional protection officer, 2nd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford United Kingdom, pp. 183–190.10.1016/B978-1-85617-746-7.00015-8Search in Google Scholar

Garcia, M.L. (2008). The design and evaluation of physical protection systems, 2nd ed. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, United States of America, pp. 1–370.10.1016/B978-0-08-055428-0.50005-1Search in Google Scholar

Graves, G.H. (2006). Analytical foundations of physical security system assessment, Ph.D., Texas A&M University, Available at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/304935574/abstract/DB3380348FBB4221PQ/1.Search in Google Scholar

Haley, C., Laney, R., Moffett, J., and Nuseibeh, B. (2008). Security requirements engineering: a framework for representation and analysis. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 34: 133–153, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2007.70754.Search in Google Scholar

Hicks, M.J., Snell, M.S., Sandoval, J.S., and Potter, C.S. (1999). Physical protection systems cost and performance analysis: a case study. IEEE Aero. Electron. Syst. Mag. 14: 9–13, https://doi.org/10.1109/62.756078.Search in Google Scholar

International Atomic Energy Agency (Ed.) (2003). Security of radioactive sources. In: Proceedings of an international conference held in Vienna, Austria 10–13, March 2003, organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Agency.Search in Google Scholar

International Atomic Energy Agency (2004). Strengthening control over radioactive sources in authorized use and regaining control over orphan sources. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, pp. 1–109.Search in Google Scholar

Internationale Atomenergie-Organisation (2011). Nuclear security recommendations on physical protection of nuclear material and nuclear facilities: INFCIRC/225/Revision 5. Internat. Atomic Energy Agency, Available at: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1481_web.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Lie, D. and Lim, C. (2011). Risk assessment of E-KTP web application vulnerability based on NIST 800-30 framework, 1st ed. International Conference Integrated Government Academic and Business, Indonesia, pp. 1–5.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, C., Tan, C.-K., Fang, Y.-S., and Lok, T. (2012). The security risk assessment methodology. Procedia Eng. 43: 600–609, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.08.106.Search in Google Scholar

Mc Aniff, R.J., Paulus, W.K., Key, B., and Simpkins, B. (1987). The SAVI vulnerability analysis software package. In: Nucl. Mater. Manage. Annu. Meet. Proc.; (United States), Vol. 16, Article CONF-870713-, Available at: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5597403.Search in Google Scholar

Mike, B. (2013). Overview of physical protection systems design and evaluation. Sandia National Laboratories, Available at: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1115144.Search in Google Scholar

Ortiz, P., Wheatley, J., Oresegun, M., and Friedrich, V. (1991). Lost and found dangers. Orphan radiation sources raise global|INIS, Vol. 30. IAEA, Available at: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:30050668.Search in Google Scholar

Ranajit, K. (2001). Integrated physical protection system, 4. IAEA, Vienna, Austria, pp. 1–7.Search in Google Scholar

Robert, K.R. and Jayce, C.B. (2013). Safety systems and access control in the national ignition facility. Health Phys. 104: 563–570, https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e31828cfb46.10.1097/HP.0b013e31828cfb46Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Tagarev, T., Pappalardo, S., and Stoianov, N. (2020). A logical model for multi-sector cyber risk management. Inf. Secur. 47: 13–26, https://doi.org/10.11610/isij.4701.10.11610/isij.4701Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-04-13
Published Online: 2022-12-22
Published in Print: 2023-02-23

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/kern-2022-0042/html
Scroll to top button