The proposal to restart the cancelled VC Summer nuclear reactor construction project in South Carolina faces many challenges, according to a detailed report from Savannah River Site Watch. The 24-page report outlines major stumbling blocks to revival of the project.
Santee Cooper, which co-owned the VC Summer project, along with South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G), launched the project to build two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the site in 2009. Construction of the units began in March and November 2013. However, construction was abandoned in July 2017, four months after Westinghouse declared bankruptcy, after years of rising costs and delays. Together, SCE&G (now owned by Dominion) and Santee Cooper had spent some $9bn on the project. SCE&G customers had already paid about $1.4bn through higher monthly utility bills for the project, which was about 64% complete.
The 24-page report, Economic, Technical and Regulatory Challenges Confound Restart of the Terminated V.C. Summer Nuclear Reactor Construction Project in South Carolina, presents 14 challenges to the restart proposal.
“The public, ignored during the VC Summer construction project, now deserve a voice in raising key challenges concerning rebirth of the project in which they still have financial ownership and that’s for whom this report speaks” said SRS Director Tom Clements. “We reveal in the report that Dominion ratepayers are right now paying 5.22% of the bill for the terminated project…. The restart effort could once again saddle customers with additional massive costs if VC Summer 2.0 proceeds.”
The 5.22% monthly rate hidden in the Dominion monthly bill was revealed in a Freedom of Information Act document provided by the South Carolina (SC) Office of Regulatory Staff to SRS Watch earlier in August. In January 2019, the SC Public Service Commission (PSC) ordered Dominion customers to pay an $2.8 over the next 20 years for the cost of the failed project and that payment is now buried in the monthly bill.
According to Clements, numerous challenges exist to project restart. He noted that the earlier project owners, Dominion Energy, which owned 55% of the project and owns the VC Summer site where a single operating reactor is now located, and the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper), originally owning 45% of the project, have no interest in pursuing project restart. Likewise, Westinghouse has fallen silent on the restart issue.
Major components such as the AP1000 reactor vessels and steam generators have been sitting exposed to the weather and degrading in the environment for more than eight years. Santee Cooper, which took control of the equipment in 2018, has floated the idea to sell off equipment sitting at the site or to revive construction with the aim of completing one or both reactors.
A brief report by the government-sponsored South Carolina Nuclear Advisory Council (NAC), dated September 2024, stimulated discussion about possible restart of construction.
In January, Santee Cooper issued a request for proposals (RFP) “seeking proposals to acquire and complete, or propose alternatives, for two partially constructed generating units at the VC Summer Nuclear Station.” In May, Santee Cooper said it had received responses to the RFP but gave no details. Short of restart, ageing equipment at the site could be sold off.
The 14 challenges identified in the report are:
- The NAC restart report is not a reliable guidepost: The September 2024 report NAC, Trip Report Evaluation of the Site Conditions of the Cancelled Units Virgil C Summer Nuclear Plant, which has not been posted on the NAC website, was presented as “a high-level opinion” about the status of equipment that remains at the site. The report contains little of substantive value related to the technical and economic challenges of any restart project and observers should be cautious.
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licence has expired: The pedigree of the quality of construction, such as rebar and concrete placement and quality, would have to be reestablished. If record keeping was poor by SCE&G, contractors or by the NRC or if records have not been maintained since 2017 (date of project halt) or 2019 (date of NRC licence termination) additional challenges will be faced. The fact that the project is about 40% complete and the reactors never operated means licensing must begin from scratch. The cost of such a venture is unknown. Any applicant seeking to obtain new licences would have to pay NRC for such costs. (NRC professional time is $318 per hour). “If NRC regulations are weakened in response to executive orders by the Trump Administration, such weakening could lead to unsafe construction and operation if the project were to somehow to go forward.”
- Re-establishing NRC equipment certification will be difficult: Nuclear quality (NQ) components come with higher prices tag as their fabrication to meet nuclear standard must be certified and their fabrication to higher quality is more expensive. If the project were to be considered for restart, rigorous NRC regulations concerning “quality assurance criteria” for “material, parts and components” must be followed. Given that NRC monitoring of the project stopped in 2019 and the inspection chain terminated, this will be difficult. “Will Westinghouse step up to provide guarantees about the functionality and NQ quality of stored equipment that it designed, provided or recommended? Likewise, will Santee Cooper guarantee NQ component origin and functionality?”
- Environmental permits must be secured anew or renewed: This is complicated by the fact that Dominion owns the land at the site, Santee Cooper owns the equipment, and a third party and subcontractors may be in charge if restart were to be pursued. Can permits issued earlier be revised or transferred?
- Unclear how much equipment remains to be resold: The stored equipment may now be obsolete, may no longer have NRC pedigree or may not function as anticipated during the time of original construction. Some of the equipment could have been in storage for 10 years or more. Under strict NRC oversight, every inventoried component would likely have to have its origin re-established and be retested and recertified and may have to be replaced, which would be costly and perhaps not feasible.
- Dominion and Santee Cooper are not interested in restart: Both Dominion Energy and Santee Cooper have said they will not pursue the restart of the project. Lack of participation by the former project owners is revealing and will complicate restart efforts. Why the companies are not interested needs further analysis as they obviously know more about the project and its demise than anyone else. If they thought project restart was a good idea, efforts would likely already be under way.
- Westinghouse plans for new AP1000s are unclear: While Westinghouse is pushing its AP1000 reactor, it remains unclear if Westinghouse can establish necessary nuclear quality ‘supply chains’ for the AP1000 anywhere, including related to the restart of the VC Summer project. During the failed construction, supply chains failed, dealing a decisive financial and technical blow to the project.” If Westinghouse is so keen to see more AP1000 units in the US and if VC Summer restart is promising, it would seem they would submit a proposal to Santee Cooper on the restart project. “If they don’t … what does that mean about their assessments of restart possibilities, equipment condition or building other AP1000s from scratch?”
- Cost and schedule of new Westinghouse AP1000s is unclear: Westinghouse CEO Dan Sumner claimed in June 2025 that the company could begin to deploy 10 new AP1000s in the US by 2030 at a cost of at least $7.5bn each. The sites are unknown and interested utilities and investors are unknown. The number of units reflects an Executive Order from the White House. “Given the failure of the US AP1000 projects, this could well be Westinghouse rhetoric designed to please gullible politicians who are excited about new nuclear reactor construction or to entice unknowing utilities and investors. And the price tag of $7.5 billion has no demonstrated basis in existing facts about the AP1000 cost.”
- Ratepayers in South Carolina could be paying again: It is unclear if any new project could proceed without ratepayers paying up front. The government might bear some costs but why should the government financially support a questionable project or commit “production tax credits” to a risky project?
- PSC and Dominion ratepayers will be involved: Given ratepayer money sunk into the failed project and still being paid, ratepayers have a key financial stake in the project and would have a place at the table in any restart or equipment sales negotiations. No plan has been presented how ratepayers would be recompensed from costs since 2009 or since the 2019 Dominion takeover. Any future nuclear reactor project at the site must be considered to be a new project as the earlier project was formally terminated. Ratepayers, who must be regarded as co-owners and co-investors in the project, must be first on the list to be compensated if any part of the project is sold. So far, all the rhetoric about project restart is ignoring that Dominion customers, as well as Santee Cooper customers, have a stake in the fate of the project.
- Federal rhetoric supporting nuclear power is not enough: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has often said that the Trump administration will “unleash” US energy dominance, including with new nuclear power. The subtext is that taxpayers and ratepayers will be thrashed by the “unleashing,” which could essentially be a repeat of the first failed round of AP1000 construction.
- Reactor restart fails to secure support from SC legislature: In January 2024, energy legislation was introduced in the South Carolina legislature with provisions to encourage the VC Summer restart project and give it special benefits. The legislation failed to pass in the 2024 session and a modified version of the bill was introduced in the 2025 session. Given the opposition to the project, the language about VC Summer was stripped from the energy bill and reduced to a resolution that was introduced in January 2025.
- Highly radioactive used fuel at new units a challenge: Long term, where will used fuel go and how much would such storage or disposal cost? Will response to the Santee Cooper request for proposals address the nuclear waste problem?
- When will the community near VC Summer be consulted?: A community meeting with local residents in Fairfield County about restart should have been held at the start of any restart discussion. Santee Cooper would be well advised to hold community meetings once it has a better feel for any responses to its restart proposal and well before it formalises any efforts with now unnamed business entities.
The report concludes: “The daunting obstacles facing VC Summer project restart must now be publicly addressed by Santee Cooper and any private entity or politician promoting restart of the project. Thoughtful analysts and the media must investigate the technical, economic and political challenges … and not just repeat the restart mantra. Restart doesn’t look to offer sustainable, efficient or affordable energy for South Carolina so must be viewed with caution. Likewise, the response to restart hurdles could also be instructive to other utilities or countries that, in a sea of concepts for imaginary “small modular reactors” – none of which exist in the US – might consider pursuing the AP1000 reactor, for which Westinghouse is making an endless sales pitch for a product that has faced massive cost overruns and unresolved problems in the US.”
