– Advertisement –
Three environmental justice organizations have challenged the environmental authorization granted for Eskom's proposed Nuclear-1 power station in the High Court, arguing that the approval was granted in breach of mandatory requirements of South Africa's environmental impact assessment laws. The proposed 4,000 MW project will be built in Dunefontaine next to the existing Koeberg Nuclear Power Station near Cape Town.
The Southern African Faith Communities Environmental Institute (SAFCEI), Greenpeace Africa and EarthLife Africa Johannesburg have described Nuclear-1 as a “zombie” nuclear project, resurrected in 2007, nearly two decades after the environmental approval process first began. Environmental authorization was granted in 2017, and the appeal against it was only rejected in 2025, after an unusually long appeal process.
Organizations are concerned that nuclear projects of this scale could involve capital commitments of hundreds of billions of rand and potentially more than a trillion rand, depending on technology choices, construction costs and financing arrangements, with potential impacts on electricity tariffs and taxpayers.
The application challenges a 2017 decision by the Chief Director: Integrated Environment Authority, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment, to grant environmental authorization for the project to Eskom, as well as a 2025 decision by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment to dismiss the appeal against that approval.
The organizations argue that the environmental authorization was granted in circumstances where the mandatory requirements of South Africa's environmental impact assessment laws were not properly complied with.
The review application is based on a number of grounds including the following:
- The organizations argue that decision makers did not conduct a proper project-specific assessment of whether construction of the proposed nuclear power station at Dunefontaine was necessary or desirable, relying primarily on national electricity planning policy rather than conducting the necessary project-specific need and desirability assessments.
- The organizations argue that renewable energy technologies were not properly evaluated as an alternative to the proposed nuclear power station. The environmental assessment relied on outdated assumptions about electricity demand, energy costs, and the need for nuclear “base-load” power, and did not adequately consider developments in renewable energy and battery energy storage systems. According to the organizations, power supply needs can be met through a combination of renewable generation such as solar and wind supported by energy storage technologies.
- The organizations argue that the option of not proceeding with the project was not meaningfully evaluated during the environmental assessment process, as required by environmental law.
- The organizations argue that the environmental assessment did not adequately evaluate the potential environmental, health and socio-economic consequences of a catastrophic nuclear event involving the uncontrolled release of radiation.
SAFCEI Executive Director, Francesca De Gasparis, said: “The granting of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Dunefontaine site seventeen years after it was originally submitted is the revival of a nuclear power plan that should have been shelved more than a decade ago, in 2017, when three of our organizations originally appealed for it. What we are seeing now is a 'zombie' revival of the same plan – without transparency, proper parliamentary oversight, economic justification, or meaningful public participation.
Cynthia Moyo, climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Africa, stressed: “When safer, faster and more affordable renewable energy alternatives are available today, it is fundamentally unjust to saddle South Africa and future generations with the financial risks, radioactive waste and possibility of a catastrophic accident of a large-scale nuclear project. South Africa is in the midst of a climate and economic crisis and it is reckless and irresponsible to move ahead with nuclear energy without fully taking into account its long-term impacts.
“Climate justice means protecting communities from unnecessary risk and debt, not locking the country into decades of expensive infrastructure that benefits the few while burdening the many. This case is about drawing a clear line, our energy future must be secure, equitable, and aligned with the constitutional right to a healthy environment for current and future generations.”
Lesai Seema, director of Cullinan & Associates, said: “We are pleased to support these organizations in ensuring that decisions that have long-term consequences for millions of South Africans are made in accordance with the law. The commitment to spend billions of rands on nuclear power plants is a commitment that must comply with national law and honestly consider its environmental, social and economic consequences for current and future generations.”
The organizations are asking the High Court to declare the appeal decisions of the Environment Authority and the Minister unlawful and set them aside.
Following the service of the founding affidavit, the matter is now a matter of public record.