Authored by Barry Vernon, Technical Manager of Rovtech
“After more than 30 years working in the nuclear sector - from hands-on operations to peer reviews and equipment design - I’ve seen the industry evolve through cycles of growth and challenges. But the recent exit of major players like James Fisher Nuclear feels like a turning point for the nuclear supply chain, raising important questions about who steps in next, how we protect capability, and encourage innovation.”
- The current state of the supply chain
- Why are companies exiting the market?
- What are the risks of a shrinking supply chain?
- What needs to change?
- What's next for the sector?
1. The current state of the supply chain
“The nuclear industry remains one of the most tightly regulated and safety-critical sectors we have – and rightly so. Getting into the UK’s nuclear supply chain is no small feat and for smaller businesses, it’s becoming increasingly difficult.
“Small and specialist firms do still exist and continue to contribute meaningful value - such as Red Engineer, Fourth Engineering and of course, Rovtech. However, in such a high-risk sector, personal networks and proven track records are essential for entry.
“For those outside the established inner circle, navigating pre-qualification processes, demonstrating track record, and bearing upfront costs can be a barrier – even when their technology or expertise could make a real impact.
“It’s not a criticism of the system, but an acknowledgement that in striving for safety and assurance, the door to innovation and capability from elsewhere can unintentionally close. And the reality is that large organisations typically have the resources to weather these setbacks, while smaller businesses often don’t.
“This poses a risk for the sector missing out on valuable expertise at a time it can't afford to. I think it’s important to raise the question of how we maintain the utmost safety in nuclear operations, without losing valuable capability within the supply chain; and how smaller, lesser-known businesses can prove their innovations without adding risk.”
2. Why are companies exiting the market?
“The reasons for key suppliers leaving the nuclear market are complex, but I think it ultimately comes down to a combination of commercial missteps and the underlying realities of working in a highly specialised, safety-critical market.
“In the case of James Fisher Nuclear, it was once a promising consolidation of specialist SMEs – including my own business - with strong engineering and delivery capability. However, the company wanted to expand from its core strengths in design and manufacture to pursue operational delivery and large-scale contracts. It’s a cautionary tale about losing focus in an industry where consistency and deep expertise matter far more than expansion.
“It’s also likely that key suppliers in the sector aren’t seeing the sales volume to justify continued investment. A single operator might only need to purchase three or four ROVs over the course of a decade, which makes cashflow stagnant for small businesses.
“Additionally, the barriers are now even higher for international expansion. Post-Brexit, France’s nuclear sector is largely inaccessible to UK suppliers, and strict security controls make entry into the US market almost impossible. Even in Japan - where Rovtech has had some success - decommissioning plans remain uncertain and sporadic. The nuclear sector requires long timelines and resilience, which isn’t easy for an SME to endure.”
3. What are the risks of a shrinking supply chain?
“With fewer players available, nuclear suppliers are increasingly vulnerable to disruption if a project is delayed, changed or withdrawn. I've seen this happen first-hand, when a company hired 30 engineers to begin a major design contract, only for the funding to be withdrawn at the last minute.
“The reality is; projects that rely on annual budgets, political shifts, or bundled procurement frameworks often lack the long-term stability needed for efficient delivery. This leads to a reactive and unpredictable system that is deeply challenging for everyone involved, but particularly for small suppliers.
“Another consequence of the shrinking supply chain is the amplification of a widening skills gap. In the 1950s and 60s, nuclear was an exciting place to be, whereas 20-30 years ago, fewer people were studying nuclear degrees and coming into the sector. I expect this will change due to the increasing pressure on carbon-neutral energy sources, but for right now, it’s crucial that we protect the legacy of skills and knowledge that remain as the supply chain narrows, and long-standing experts reach retirement.
“Finally, although safety procedures and governance frameworks are essential in this sector, they can also introduce added layers between suppliers and the engineering decisions that drive innovation. When I ran my own business, we were able to collaborate directly with engineers, whereas now you’ll have multiple layers of project management between suppliers and engineering teams.”
4. What needs to change?
“In this industry, success depends on extensive domain knowledge and careful risk management, backed by real-world experience in one of the world’s most challenging operating environments.
“This isn’t a call for radical reform – it’s a call for balance. We need to preserve the rigorous standards and layered assurance that keep this sector safe, while also making space for collaboration, technical insight, and a willingness to move beyond ‘the way it’s always been done’.
“To rebuild supply chain resilience, suppliers need to understand the sector’s limitations and work within them, while operators and regulators must adopt practical, field-tested solutions if they want to deliver better outcomes, faster. Without a renewed focus on collaboration and building strategic alliances, the industry will be in a more vulnerable position now that key players have left the market.”
5. What's next for the sector?
“The exit of a few major players in the nuclear supply chain signals a reset moment for the sector. While their departure may leave gaps in capability, it also creates space for new partnerships, innovative thinking and proven specialists to step forward.
“This coming year, the nuclear sector is expected to receive more funding than ever before, due to the huge focus on decommissioning legacy nuclear sites that need to be addressed, and the essential management of the waste left over. This presents an opportunity, but also a responsibility to spend wisely, build partnerships that last, and unlock the kind of long-term resilience the industry needs.
“Ultimately, it’s critical for operators to partner with those who truly understand the challenges and the constraints within the sector, and for suppliers to know their strengths and have the ability to innovate within those limits.”