‘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 existingKoebergnuclear power station near Cape Town. TheSouthern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute(Safcei),Greenpeace AfricaandEarthlife Africa Johannesburgdescribed 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 Georgeannounced that he had upheld the 2017 decisiongranting 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.

[paywall]

However, the civil society groups warned thatnuclear projects of that scalecould 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,” saidFrancesca 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.”

[/paywall]