By IJ Arora, Ph.D.

 

As nuclear energy regains attention as a low-carbon solution, organizations developing these energy sources need to consider a systems approach to the safe launch and growth of facilities. Once considered a great alternative to gasoline and coal, the nuclear energy industry’s growth was negatively affected by incidents like those at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

In this short article, I will attempt to convey that customer focus (clause 5.1.2 of ISO 9001:2015) is best ensured by proactive, not reactive, measures. This can be achieved through appreciating hazards, converting them to risks, prioritizing them, and planning the management system to achieve desired objectives.

Having served on a nuclear submarine and been on board when a nuclear accident took place, I know the pros and cons of this energy source. However, the world has changed since these tragic incidents and now there are advancements in not only nuclear technology but also in the management of nuclear facilities. ISO 19443:2018 a quality management system (QMS) standard built on the foundation of ISO 9001, but which is specific to the management of nuclear facilities. For those in the United States, ASME offers the NQA-1:2024 standard which is similarly dedicated to the nuclear industry.

Nuclear energy is perhaps an answer to the world’s power requirements. The demand for electricity is growing by the day with the extensive use of artificial intelligence and large data centers. A systems approach to management of this industry gives the world the best chance to appreciate risks systematically and plan for consequences proactively.

Grave negative effects to safety, security, health, and the environment are all likely consequences if a nuclear mishap takes place once again. Although the primary objective of a QMS is to get the desired output, it should not be at the cost of these potential harms.

The Three Mile Island facility is in the news once again for re-opening ahead of schedule. For those who do not remember, on March 28, 1979, a partial meltdown occurred at the Unit 2 reactor outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Environmental impacts included the release of radioactive gases into the atmosphere (albeit in limited amounts), long-term challenges in radioactive waste storage, and site contamination. Additionally, there were psychological and social effects that caused a loss of public trust in the nuclear energy industry.

As discussions emerge about reopening the Three Mile Island facility (now scheduled by 2027), evaluating its environmental effects through the lens of the ISO 14001:2015 environmental management system (EMS) is both prudent and proactive. Therefore, in the following section, I will outline the relevant applicable clauses from ISO 14001:2015.

Applicability of ISO 14001:2015 to a nuclear facility

Clauses 4.1 and 4.2, “Context of the Organization” and “Needs and Expectations of Interested Parties”

Nuclear facilities would benefit from considering:

• Historical context (e.g., past accidents and public concern)
• Stakeholders such as regulatory bodies, local communities, and environmental NGOs
• Emerging media reports and public opposition or support as environmental risk indicators

Clause 6.1, “Actions to Address Risks and Opportunities related to Significant Environmental Aspects”

Considering a lifecycle approach, a reopened nuclear plant must assess:

• Emissions of ionizing radiation
• Spent fuel storage and long-term waste management
• Thermal pollution from coolant discharge
• Accident and emergency scenarios
• And other significant environmental aspects requiring control measures and documentation

Clause 6.1.3, “Compliance Obligations”

This subclause involves alignment with:

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules
• EPA guidelines on radiological impacts
• International agreements on nuclear safety and waste

Clause 6.1.4, “Planning Action”

The plant must establish plans to:

• Prevent recurrence of accidents like those of March 28, 1979
• Contain and manage radioactive leaks
• Mitigate environmental risks in both normal and abnormal operating conditions

Clause 8.2, “Emergency Preparedness and Response”

This subclause includes details critical for a nuclear facility and requires:

• Detailed emergency response procedures for nuclear accidents
• Training for first responders and public communication plans
• Coordination with local and federal emergency management agencies

Clause 9.1.1, “Monitoring, Measurement, Analysis, and Evaluation”

To meet the requirements of this subclause, facilities must continuously monitor:

• Radiation levels in air, water, and soil
• Effectiveness of containment systems
• Compliance with regulatory thresholds

Clause 10.1, “Nonconformity and Corrective Action”

This subclause would require that:

• Any incident or near-miss must trigger a formal investigation
• Includes lessons learned from:
  • The March 28, 1979 event itself
  • Any deviations during recommissioning or startup

A system approach to nuclear facility management

The opening (or, in this case, reopening) of a nuclear facility offers an opportunity to integrate modern management system practices with lessons learned from the past. ISO 19443:2018 and ISO 14001:2015 provide a structured framework to manage the needs of nuclear operations as well as public environmental concerns.

During my time consulting for numerous industries, I have found a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis to be a very useful tool— especially the weaknesses and threats that help identify risks. A detailed SWOT analysis for the Three Mile Island facility might provide the following inputs as an example:

Technical and operational risks: aging infrastructure

• Although it was not the site of the 1979 meltdown, Unit 1 is more than 50 years old.
• Restarting involves complex retrofits, control system upgrades, and re-licensing—all of which require time and precision.
• Rushing these checks might lead to overlooked fatigue, corrosion, or component failures.

Human factors

• Post-incident, nuclear workforce training and institutional memory may be weak.
• Skilled nuclear operators must be retrained or recruited, and hasty onboarding increases the chance of human error—a factor in many historical nuclear mishaps.

Environmental risks: radioactive emissions and waste

• Restarting means handling spent fuel, coolant systems, and storage pools.
• Hurrying these operations risks could lead to:
  • Leaks during fuel handling or containment failures
  • Inadequate radioactive waste protocols

Ecosystem disruption

• Cooling systems may discharge thermal pollution into nearby rivers.
• Emergency preparedness might not be fully revalidated for post-reopening conditions.

Better alternatives to a rushed restart

Although early reopening offers incentives like energy security, carbon reduction, and economic revival, these gains are precariously balanced against high-impact risks that could derail long-term viability. The strengths and opportunities may only be fully realized with a controlled, phased, and transparent approach, not through acceleration that bypasses environmental, technical, and social due diligence.

As such, organizations pursuing the development of nuclear energy plants must consider:

• Phased reopening with public oversight
• Third-party safety audits after at least two cycles of internal audits post implementation of the management system
• Full-scale emergency drills and community outreach prior to operation
• Independent environmental impact assessments (EIA)

Conclusion

The benefits of a fast reopening exist, however, the risks far outweigh short-term gains unless stringent safety, regulatory, and public engagement protocols are followed. Strategic value lies in measured and transparent activation/reactivation, not haste. ISO 14001:2015, ISO 19443:2018, and ASME NQA-1:2024 provide the framework for an integrated management system.

In conclusion, I would say a good strategy to implement and to safely accelerate nuclear energy deployment must include the adoption of a management system. ISO 14001:2015 ensures environmental responsibility and community accountability; ISO 19443:2018 drives quality, culture, and nuclear-supplier discipline; and ASME NQA-1:2024 enforces technical rigor and traceable QA processes. Together, these standards offer a comprehensive, risk-based, and stakeholder-aligned approach.

Rushing implementation without such integration would leave critical blind spots. An integrated implementation roadmap including these standards could guide the strategic and operational implementation in support of safe, controlled nuclear energy expansion.

About the author

Inderjit (IJ) Arora, Ph.D., is the Chairman of QMII. He serves as a team leader for consulting, advising, auditing, and training regarding management systems. He has conducted many courses for the United States Coast Guard and is a popular speaker at several universities and forums on management systems. Arora is a Master Mariner who holds a Ph.D., a master’s degree, an MBA, and has a 34-year record of achievement in the military, mercantile marine, and civilian industry.