SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Afet ve Risk Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3

The Nature and Identification of CBRN Risks in the VUCA World and a Case Study: Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident

Neslihan Külahlıoğlu(Ankara Üniversitesi)0000-0002-2579-1932
Fatma Cengiz0009-0003-4013-9525
Tamer Işın0000-0002-3295-6651
Zişan Cihangir Işın0000-0002-4641-6728
Mustafa Kemal Topcu0000-0002-3298-1283
Pages
1179–1206
Publication Date
2025-11-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By emphasizing the importance of multidimensional approaches in risk identification processes, the study contributes to the improvement of risk management, especially in critical infrastructures such as nuclear facilities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) events require a special approach in risk management due to their unpredictability and devastating effects in a VUCA(Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity) world.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on the results of the aftermath of the Fukushima incident, the analysis of a total of 37 risk factors revealed that ISRM has a higher capacity to identify or capture Black Swan risks compared to other methodologies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By emphasizing the importance of multidimensional approaches in risk identification processes, the study contributes to the improvement of risk management, especially in critical infrastructures such as nuclear facilities.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:CBRN · Cynefin Framework · Ibn Sina Risk Matrix

Abstract

CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) events require a special approach in risk management due to their unpredictability and devastating effects in a VUCA(Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity) world. In this study, different risk identification methodologies are analyzed comparatively, especially in the context of the severe accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. The effectiveness of the VUCA Meter, the Cynefin Framework, and the Ibn Sina Risk Matrix (ISRM) methodologies for identifying and managing unforeseen high-impact events, referred to as Black Swans, is evaluated. Based on the results of the aftermath of the Fukushima incident, the analysis of a total of 37 risk factors revealed that ISRM has a higher capacity to identify or capture Black Swan risks compared to other methodologies. By emphasizing the importance of multidimensional approaches in risk identification processes, the study contributes to the improvement of risk management, especially in critical infrastructures such as nuclear facilities.

Özet

CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) events require a special approach in risk management due to their unpredictability and devastating effects in a VUCA(Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity) world. In this study, different risk identification methodologies are analyzed comparatively, especially in the context of the severe accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. The effectiveness of the VUCA Meter, the Cynefin Framework, and the Ibn Sina Risk Matrix (ISRM) methodologies for identifying and managing unforeseen high-impact events, referred to as Black Swans, is evaluated. Based on the results of the aftermath of the Fukushima incident, the analysis of a total of 37 risk factors revealed that ISRM has a higher capacity to identify or capture Black Swan risks compared to other methodologies. By emphasizing the importance of multidimensional approaches in risk identification processes, the study contributes to the improvement of risk management, especially in critical infrastructures such as nuclear facilities.

🔖

Cite This Article

Külahlıoğlu, N., Cengiz, F., Işın, T., Işın, Z. C., Topcu, M. K. (2025). The Nature and Identification of CBRN Risks in the VUCA World and a Case Study: Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Afet ve Risk Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 1179–1206. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1746055

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (61)

  1. Adam, E. M., Dahleh, M. A., and Ozdaglar, A. (2014). Towards an algebra for cascade effects. In 2014 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) (pp. 4461-4466). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2014.7040085.
  2. Adeola, A., Iwuozor, K., Akpomie, K., Adegoke, K., Oyedotun, K., Ighalo, J., Amaku, J., Olisah, C., and Conradie, J. (2022). Advances in the management of radioactive wastes and radionuclide contamination in environmental compartments: a review. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 45, 2663 - 2689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-022-01378-7.
  3. Antkiewicz, R., Tarapata, Z., Pierzchała, D., Rulka, J., Najgebauer, A. (2019). CBRN Risk Analysis Using the Analytical Tools of the WAZkA System. In: Murayama, Y., Velev, D., Zlateva, P. (eds) Information Technology in Disaster Risk Reduction. ITDRR 2018. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 550. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32169-7_4
  4. Aras, E., and Diaconeasa, M. (2021). A Critical Look at the Need for Performing Multi-Hazard Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants. Eng. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng2040028.
  5. Aven, T. (2013). On the meaning of a black swan in a risk context. Safety Science, 57, 44-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.016.
  6. Aven, T. (2020). Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples. Risk Analysis, 40. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13549.
  7. Bennett, Nathan and Lemoine, James, What VUCA Really Means for You (Jan/Feb 2014). Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92, No. 1/2, 2014, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2389563
  8. Bruno, F. et al. (2018). CBRN Risk Scenarios. In: Bonča, J., Kruchinin, S. (eds) Nanostructured Materials for the Detection of CBRN. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series A: Chemistry and Biology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1304-5_23
  9. IAEA. (2002). Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Installations. International Atomic Energy Agency.
  10. IAEA. (2011). Criteria for Radionuclide Activity Concentrations for Exemption, Clearance and Disposal: General Safety Guide No. GSG-1. International Atomic Energy Agency. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/21/07/gsg1_web.pdf
  11. IAEA. (2013),The Follow-up IAEA International Mission on Remediation of Large Contaminated Areas Off-site the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. International Atomic Energy Agency. Preliminary summary report: The follow-up IAEA international mission on remediation of large contaminated areas off-site the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Tokyo and Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, 14–21 October 2013). International Atomic Energy Agency.) https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_followup_mission_oct2013_summary_report.pdf
  12. IAEA. (2015). The Fukushima Daiichi Accident -- Technical Volume 1--5. International Atomic Energy Agency. The Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Report by the Director General. IAEA. https://www.iaea.org/publications/10962/the-fukushima-daiichi-accident
  13. ISO. (2018). ISO 31000: Risk Management -- Guidelines. International Organization for Standardisation.
  14. Işın, T., Işın, Z. C., Fidan, H., and Işın, B. T. (2023). Yeni nesil girişimcilik ekosistemi. T. Işın and M. K. Topcu (Eds.), Yeni nesil girişimcilik ekosistemi (pp. 251–292). Siyasal Kitabevi.
  15. Işın, T., Işın, Z. C., and Fidan, H. (2024). Is VUCA meter a solution against Black Swan ignorance in risk analysis? In Proceedings of the III. Ankara Human and Social Sciences Congress with International Participation (pp. 90–110). Siyasal Kitabevi. ISBN: 978-605-71213-6-3.
  16. Fridgeirsson, T., Ingason, H., Jonasson, H., and Kristjánsdóttir, B. (2021). The VUCAlity of Projects: A New Approach to Assess a Project Risk in a Complex World. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073808.
  17. Kieras, T., Farooq, J., Zhu, Q. (2022). Risk Mitigation Decisions. In: IoT Supply Chain Security Risk Analysis and Mitigation. SpringerBriefs in Computer Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08480-5_3.
  18. Kaplan, Robert S., and Anette Mikes. "Managing Risks: A New Framework" Harvard Business Review 90, no. 6 (June 2012).
  19. Külahlıoğlu, F., Işın, T., Işın, E., and Topcu, M. K. (2023). A new risk management approach in VUCA world: Application of Ibn Sina's risk matrix to nuclear risk management. Journal of Risk Research, 1-22.
  20. Kwag, S., Ha, J., Kim, M., and Kim, J. (2019). Development of Efficient External Multi-Hazard Risk Quantification Methodology for Nuclear Facilities. Energies. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12203925.
  21. Labib, A., and Harris, M. (2015). Learning how to learn from failures: the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Engineering Failure Analysis, 47, 117-128.
  22. Macgillivray, B. (2020). Handling Uncertainty in Models of Seismic and Postseismic Hazards: Toward Robust Methods and Resilient Societies. Risk Analysis, 41, 1499 - 1512. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13663.
  23. Matsui, R. (2021). Qualitative Data Analysis of Testimony on the Safety Measures Prior to the Fukushima Daiichi Accident. Transactions of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan. https://doi.org/10.3327/taesj.j20.013.
  24. Mousavian, S., Shirani, A., and D'Auria, F. (2022). Analysis of loss of cooling accident and loss of coolant severe accident scenarios in VVER-1000/V446 spent fuel pool. Annals of Nuclear Energy.
  25. Moustafa, M., and Chang, C. (2020). Preventing cascading failure of electric power protection systems in nuclear power plant. Nuclear Engineering and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.06.010.
  26. Murakami M, Nakatani J, Oki T (2016) Evaluation of Risk Perception and Risk-Comparison Information Regarding Dietary Radionuclides after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident. PLOS ONE 11(11): e0165594. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165594.
  27. Murata, A., and Karwowski, W. (2021). On the Root Causes of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster from the Perspective of High Complexity and Tight Coupling in Large-Scale Systems. Symmetry, 13, 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13030414.
  28. National Research Council. (2013). Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety of U.S. Nuclear Plants. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18294/lessons-learned-from-the-fukushima-nuclear-accident-for-improving-safety-of-us-nuclear-plants.
  29. National Research Council (2014). Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety of U.S. Nuclear Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18294.
  30. Nomura, S., Murakami, M., Ozaki, A., Sawano, T., Leppold, C., Nishikawa, Y.,. Tsubokura, M. (2021). Comparative risk assessment of non-communicable diseases by evacuation scenario- a retrospective study in the 7 years following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. Global Health Action, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2021.1918886
  31. Nuclear Regulation Authority. (2017). Regulatory Improvements and Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident. NRA Japan. https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000217665.pdf Nuclear Energy Agency. (2018). A Discourse on Risk Management Assessments in the Era Post-Fukushima. OECD/NEA. https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_19712.
  32. Omidifard, P., Pirouzmand, A., Hadad, K., and Şahin, S. (2020). Analysis of loss of cooling power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 177, 1-12.
  33. Oxford English Dictionary (OED). (2024). Definition of “Black Swan.” Oxford University Press. Available at:https://www.oed.com/dictionary/black-swan_n?tab=factsheet#204763043.
  34. Pagani, L., Apostolakis, G., and Hejzlar, P. (2005). The Impact of Uncertainties on the Performance of Passive Systems. Nuclear Technology, 149, 129 - 140. https://doi.org/10.13182/nt149-129.
  35. Parviainen, T., Goerlandt, F., Helle, I., Haapasaari, P., and Kuikka, S. (2020). Implementing Bayesian networks for ISO 31000:2018-based maritime oil spill risk management: State-of-art, implementation benefits and challenges, and future research directions. Journal of environmental management, 278 Pt 1, 111520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111520.
  36. Patel, MPH, MPhil, S. S., Neylan, MS, J. H., Bavaro, K., Chai, MD, MS, P. R., Goralnick, MD, MS, E., and Erickson, MD, T. B. (2022). Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives (CBRNEs) preparedness for sporting event mass gatherings: A systematic review of the literature. American Journal of Disaster Medicine, 17(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2022.0420.
  37. Peerally, M., Carr, S., Waring, J., and Dixon-Woods, M. (2016). The problem with root cause analysis. BMJ Quality and Safety, 26, 417 - 422. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005511.
  38. Ren, D., and Zheng, W. (2015). Quantitative analysis methodology of non-deterministic causal relationship in risk analysis. International Journal of Security and Its Applications, 9(8), 261-274. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijsia.2015.9.8.23.
  39. Sato, A., and Lyamzina, Y. (2018). Diversity of Concerns in Recovery after a Nuclear Accident: A Perspective from Fukushima. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020350.
  40. Sharma, S., Bhartia, D., and Mohan, N. (2017). Options for management of Containment Integrity during severe accident in Indian PHWR. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 323, 386-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.04.002.
  41. Sinha, D., and Sinha, S. (2020). Managing in a VUCA world: Possibilities and pitfalls. Journal of Technology Management for Growing Economies, 11(1), 17-21. https://doi.org/10.15415/jtmge.2020.111003.
  42. Sivakumar, P., and Karthikeyan, K. (2020). Feasibility Analysis of Solar Power for the Safety of Fast Reactors during beyond Design Basis Events. Renewable Energy - Technologies and Applications. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89822.
  43. Skalozubov, V. and Kozlov, Igor and Hayo, Hani and Kozlov, О and Dudarev, I. and Yarotskaya, G. (2022). Issues Of Predicting The Impact Of Nuclear Power Facilitıes Accıdents' Radiation Consequences. Odes'kyi Politechnichnyi Universytet Pratsi. 2. 64-73. 10.15276/opu.2.66.2022.08.
  44. Snowden, David and Boone, M.E. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard business review. 85. 68-76, 149.
  45. Srinivasan, T., and Rethinaraj, T. (2013). Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power. Energy Policy, 52, 726-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.036.
  46. TEPCO (2008). Internal Report on Tsunami Risk Assessment for Fukushima Daiichi. Tokyo Electric Power Company.
  47. Takebayashi, Y., Lyamzina, Y., Suzuki, Y., and Murakami, M. (2017). Risk Perception and Anxiety Regarding Radiation after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident: A Systematic Qualitative Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1306. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111306.
  48. Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House.
  49. Tsabitah, A., Chumaidiyah, E., and Suhendra, A. (2025). Designing Risk Mitigation Strategies Using Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Based on ERM and House of Risk (HOR) Models. Journal of Ecohumanism. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v4i2.6555.
  50. Vıčar, Dušan and Radim Vıčar. Cbrn Terrorism: Contribution to The Analysis of Risk. Journal Of Defence Resources Management. Rumunsko, Brašov, 2011, 2nd, 2nd, P. 21- 28. Issn 2068-9403.
  51. Wagner, F., Latz, J., Papaioannou, I., and Ullmann, E. (2021). Error analysis for probabilities of rare events with approximate models. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 59(4), 1948-1975.* https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1359808.
  52. Volkanovski, A., and Veira, M. (2018). Analysis of Loss of Essential Power System Reported in Nuclear Power Plants. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3671640.
  53. Wagner, F., Latz, J., Papaioannou, I., and Ullmann, E. (2021). Error analysis for probabilities of rare events with approximate models. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 59(4), 1948-1975. https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1359808.
  54. Wang, W., Cammi, A., Maio, F., Lorenzi, S., and Zio, E. (2018). A Monte Carlo-based exploration framework for identifying components vulnerable to cyber threats in nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 177, 1-12.
  55. Wheatley, S., Sovacool, B. K., and Sornette, D. (2016). Reassessing the safety of nuclear power. Energy Research and Social Science, 15, 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.026.
  56. Wilson, P. W., Park, T. L., Harrison-Day, B., Hinton, D., Nilssen, L., Rose, M., and Isles, S.(2021). Environmental and Economic Recovery Post-Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster: Isotope Characteristics and the Recovery of a Crippled Fisheries Industry. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 27(4), 53-59.
  57. Xue, Y. and Xiao, S. (2011). Comprehensively Defending High Risk Events with Low Probability. Automation of Electric Power Systems, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 1-11.
  58. Zaky, M. (2018). Risk Analysis using Fuzzy System based Risk Matrix Methodology. Arab Journal of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, 51(4), 204-212. doi: 10.21608/ajnsa.2018.2448.1047
  59. Zuev, S., and Kabalyants, P. (2022). On the black swan risk dynamical evaluation. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 25(1-2), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRAM.2022.128707.
  60. Nomura, S., Murakami, M., Ozaki, A., Sawano, T., Leppold, C., Nishikawa, Y.,. Tsubokura, M. (2021). Comparative risk assessment of non-communicable diseases by evacuation scenario- a retrospective study in the 7 years following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. Global Health Action, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2021.1918886
  61. Oxford English Dictionary (OED). (2024). Definition of “Black Swan.” Oxford University Press. Available at:https://www.oed.com/dictionary/black-swan_n?tab=factsheet#204763043.