Nuclear waste management is one of the most complex and high-stakes challenges facing the energy sector.
In the UK, nuclear power stations were constructed at speed during a period of rapid national expansion, driven by a deep sense of purpose and engineering pride that still defines the sector today.
Now, the nuclear industry operates under intense regulatory pressure with safety as a non-negotiable priority. But those high standards often clash with ageing infrastructure, fragmented site designs, and approval systems that are slow to adapt. Meanwhile, procurement models have become increasingly rigid, and the supply chain has shrunk -reducing access to specialist expertise and making it harder for projects to stay on track.
We explore five critical challenges currently facing the sector and highlight where there could be opportunities to move the industry forward without compromising safety or efficiency.
- Harsh environments destroy equipment
- Complex approval processes slow everything down
- Strict regulations lead to blocked budgets and supply chain challenges
- Shrinking supply chains restricts options
- Global experience in nuclear waste management is limited
1. Harsh environments destroy equipment
Nuclear environments push engineering to its limits - and the people working in them bring a huge amount of skill and care to every deployment. With high radiation, corrosive water chemistry, and long deployment times making it incredibly challenging to work with and maintain equipment on site. When tools aren’t engineered for these conditions, they fail early, compromise safety, or drive-up costs through delays and replacements.
There’s a careful balance to be struck between equipment that is sophisticated in its customisation and capabilities, but straightforward enough to withstand high radiation levels and minimise the points of failure.
While many operators have relied on Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) ROVs, there’s an increasing demand for Commercially Modified Off-The-Shelf (CMOTS) solutions. These systems are almost standardised but slightly adapted for nuclear-specific requirements like 11.5 pH water or extended submersion.
At Rovtech, our nuclear equipment has been developed from this need for modification. From nuclear pond lights and cameras to robust ROV systems, our systems have been proven in harsh, long-term pond deployments without retrieval, handling both radiation and water chemistry without degradation.
Ultimately, nuclear operators need more than just equipment, they need a trusted supplier who understands the operating environment and can deliver a system that does the job well in the harshest nuclear conditions.
2. Complex approval processes slow everything down
The nuclear industry is like steering a large boat; it’s slow to move, and even harder to correct if the course turns out to be wrong. As a result, the design, approval, and deployment of new tools or systems are governed by strict, often lengthy processes involving multiple layers of review. For instance, client delays resulted in a Rovtech developed waste-handling machine spending over 30 years in development, and during that time, the control system had to be redesigned three times due to obsolescence.
The checks and balances required in the nuclear industry are essential - and they’re part of what makes this sector one of the safest and most tightly controlled in the world. The problem, however, lies in the rigidity of how new suppliers and innovations are evaluated and adopted. There’s a heavy reliance on known players, historical relationships, and lengthy pre-qualification processes that discourage or delay the introduction of new, proven solutions.
In recent years, this challenge has been emphasised by changes in procurement models. Many major nuclear contractors and site owners have moved away from having a large supply base and are now locked into bundled contracts. Although this offers commercial stability and tighter control, it often results in site owners trying to self-deliver complex solutions of multiple products and services in one package, hiring employees that may not have the right expertise, and finding themselves running out of time or budget - at which point they turn to external specialists to recover the situation.
To overcome this, the industry needs to create space for specialist suppliers to plug into existing projects, without having to wait years for full qualification. This also means validating technology in lower-risk environments, so it can build the trust needed to scale up to site deployment. More early-stage collaboration, clearer pathways for new entrants, and better knowledge sharing across organisations would go a long way to speeding up innovation, without compromising safety.
3. Strict regulations lead to blocked budgets and supply chain challenges
One of the biggest frustrations in the nuclear sector is that capital expenditure is tightly controlled by the government. Funding is often allocated on a year-by-year basis, which has several ripple effects on nuclear operators.
Firstly, it makes long-term planning extremely difficult for suppliers and delivery partners. After extensive design and development work, projects can be shelved with little notice, only to be picked up again a decade later when both the commercial and technological landscape have completely evolved.
Not only that, if a site doesn’t spend its full budget in a given year, it may be penalised the following year. As a result, teams are often encouraged to use funding quickly, regardless of whether it aligns with long-term strategic goals; creating a situation where spending becomes reactive instead of proactive, and innovation suffers.
Long-term bundled contracts do offer commercial stability and help ensure accountability over time - both critical in a high-risk environment such as nuclear. However, when contractors are locked in for up to six years and attempt to self-deliver, this reduces opportunities for alternative, specialist suppliers to contribute meaningfully and puts pressure on already-stretched internal teams. When nuclear waste removal targets aren’t met, there’s rarely meaningful accountability - the work just rolls forward, often without reassessment.
The industry needs a more flexible, outcome-focused funding model - one that balances safety and compliance with the ability to plan ahead. Sites and suppliers alike benefit when funding aligns with project lifecycles, not financial year-end deadlines. Equally, creating space within bundled contracts for pre-qualified external specialists can help avoid delivery delays, reduce costs, and strengthen the overall supply chain - without compromising control or compliance.
4. Shrinking supply chains restricts options
One of the biggest frustrations in the nuclear sector is that capital expenditure is tightly controlled by the government. Funding is often allocated on a year-by-year basis, which has several ripple effects on nuclear operators.
Firstly, it makes long-term planning extremely difficult for suppliers and delivery partners. After extensive design and development work, projects can be shelved with little notice, only to be picked up again a decade later when both the commercial and technological landscape have completely evolved.
Not only that, if a site doesn’t spend its full budget in a given year, it may be penalised the following year. As a result, teams are often encouraged to use funding quickly, regardless of whether it aligns with long-term strategic goals; creating a situation where spending becomes reactive instead of proactive, and innovation suffers.
Long-term bundled contracts do offer commercial stability and help ensure accountability over time - both critical in a high-risk environment such as nuclear. However, when contractors are locked in for up to six years and attempt to self-deliver, this reduces opportunities for alternative, specialist suppliers to contribute meaningfully and puts pressure on already-stretched internal teams. When nuclear waste removal targets aren’t met, there’s rarely meaningful accountability - the work just rolls forward, often without reassessment.
The industry needs a more flexible, outcome-focused funding model - one that balances safety and compliance with the ability to plan ahead. Sites and suppliers alike benefit when funding aligns with project lifecycles, not financial year-end deadlines. Equally, creating space within bundled contracts for pre-qualified external specialists can help avoid delivery delays, reduce costs, and strengthen the overall supply chain - without compromising control or compliance.
5. Global experience in nuclear waste management is limited
The UK is globally recognised as a leader in nuclear decommissioning - with Sellafield setting the standard for complex legacy waste management and site remediation. However, that deep, practical experience in nuclear waste management is limited in other countries.
One reason for this is that every UK nuclear site is different, which creates logistical and operational challenges that few outside the country are equipped to handle. In France, for instance, a number of the nuclear sites are more or less the same, with its national nuclear industry being highly centralised, with standardised reactor designs and far greater investment to make large-scale planning and decommissioning more efficient.
Other countries also have very different structures for their nuclear plants. In the US, for example, contractors often manage entire sites independently, which can lead to accountability and knowledge gaps when contracts run out. This was seen in the case of Rocky Flats; a former production facility where over 100kg of plutonium went unaccounted for when the contract ended. In contrast, UK sites are highly regulated, and heavily managed by the government and regulators, such as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).
Many international projects are still finding their footing when it comes to waste handling, with inconsistent standards, varying treatment methods, and limited experience. Some opt for dry storage, others for wet; some add chemicals to dissolve fuel cladding, while others rely on mechanical separation. There’s no single playbook, and that makes knowledge-sharing more important than ever. At Rovtech, we’ve spent decades learning how to handle waste safely, efficiently, and in compliance with the strictest standards. The more we can collaborate with operators, the better equipped we’ll be to manage the growing challenge of nuclear waste, globally.
The nuclear industry isn’t without its challenges, but it’s also full of dedicated professionals, proven technology, and a shared commitment to doing things right. Progress might be complex, but it’s achievable; with the right partnerships, knowledge, and equipment, we can build a stronger future for nuclear waste management.