‘Zombie’ nuclear project: Nuclear-1  environmental authorisation faces legal battle

Three environmental justice organisations have launched a high court challenge against the environmental authorisation granted for Eskom’s proposed Nuclear-1 power station, arguing that the approval breached mandatory requirements of South Africa’s environmental impact assessment (EIA) laws.

The proposed 4 000MW project would be built at Duynefontein next to the existing Koeberg  nuclear power station near Cape Town. 

The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei), Greenpeace Africa and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg described Nuclear-1 as a “zombie” project, which is being revived nearly two decades after the environmental approval process began in 2007.

The environmental authorisation was granted in 2017 and appeals against it were dismissed only in 2025, after a prolonged process. The organisations are asking the high court to declare the environmental authorisation and the minister’s appeal decision unlawful and set them aside. 

In November 2025, former environment minister Dion George announced that he had upheld the 2017 decision granting Eskom environmental authorisation. At the time, George said he had carefully reviewed the EIA report and the independent peer review conducted for the project.

“In the end, my decision was made in respect of the principles of the [National Environmental Management] Act and with full appreciation of the environmental, social and economic considerations involved,” George said. 

He also emphasised that the authorisation did not automatically permit Eskom to begin construction; the utility must obtain other statutory approvals, including a nuclear installation licence, water use licence and energy regulator approval.

However, the civil society groups warned that nuclear projects of that scale could involve capital commitments running into hundreds of billions of rand, potentially exceeding R1 trillion, with implications for electricity tariffs and taxpayers.

Arguing that the environmental authorisation breached EIA laws, their key concerns were that decision-makers had not conducted a project-specific assessment of the station’s necessity or desirability; renewable energy alternatives were not properly considered; and the option of not proceeding was not meaningfully evaluated. 

The EIA had also allegedly failed to fully examine the potential environmental, health and socio-economic consequences of a catastrophic nuclear incident.

“The granting of the EIA for the Duynefontein site 17 years after it was originally submitted is a resurrection of a nuclear energy plan that should have been shelved more than a decade ago,” said Francesca de Gasparis, the executive director of Safcei.

“What we are witnessing now is a ‘zombie’ revival of that same plan — without transparency, proper parliamentary oversight, economic justification or meaningful public participation.”

Cynthia Moyo, the climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Africa, added: “It is fundamentally unjust to saddle South Africans and future generations with the financial risk, radioactive waste and catastrophic accident potential of a massive nuclear project when safer, quicker and more affordable renewable energy options are available today.” 

Climate justice, Moyo said, meant protecting communities from unnecessary risk and debt and “not locking the country into decades of costly infrastructure that benefits the few while burdening the many”.

Lesai Seema, the director of Cullinan and Associates, the legal representative for the groups, said it was “delighted to support these organisations” in ensuring that decisions with long-term consequences for millions of South Africans were taken in accordance with the law.

“A commitment to spend billions on nuclear power plants must comply with national legislation and reckon honestly with its environmental, social and economic consequences for present and future generations.”