The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has raised concerns over insufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate groundwater protection at the proposed Wings uranium project in Namibia’s Omaheke Region, identifying 27 areas requiring improvement before pilot in-situ leaching (ISL) operations proceed.
The findings are contained in an independent technical review of the project being developed by Headspring Investments, a subsidiary of Uranium One Group, which falls under Russia’s state-owned nuclear corporation Rosatom.
According to the IAEA, the developer has not provided sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate effective separation between the uranium-bearing Auob Aquifer and the overlying Kalahari Aquifer, raising concerns about groundwater protection during the proposed pilot operations.
The agency recommended additional testing and verification of environmental safeguards before chemical leaching solutions are introduced into the uranium-bearing aquifer.
The review identified 27 areas for improvement, comprising 20 technical recommendations and seven relating to stakeholder engagement and regulatory coordination.
“Twenty-seven suggestions – seven relating to stakeholder engagement (S.1–S.7) and twenty relating to technical aspects of ISL operations (T.1–T.20) to address issues and to support safe and environmentally responsible in-situ leaching,” the report states.
The IAEA proposed a phased authorisation process that would require the developer to demonstrate compliance with environmental and technical safeguards before progressing to subsequent stages of the pilot project.
The agency also identified shortcomings in radioactive waste management, noting that Namibia currently does not have an established disposal facility for radioactive waste generated by ISL pilot operations.
According to the report, Headspring intends to store radioactive residues at the project site until an appropriate disposal facility becomes available.
“Namibia currently does not have an established facility for the disposal of radioactive waste from ISL pilot operations. As a result, the Proponent intends to store radioactive residues on site until a suitable disposal option becomes available,” the report states.
“It should be noted that, the absence of a confirmed disposal option introduces uncertainty regarding long-term handling and off-site transfer of radioactive materials.”
The agency further found that while the project’s Environmental Management Plans outline general waste management measures, detailed site-specific procedures were not available for assessment.
It attributed some of the shortcomings to the project’s early development stage, as laboratory facilities remain incomplete and pilot operations have yet to commence.
The IAEA recommended that the developer assess the radioactivity of drilling residues to determine whether they should be classified as radioactive waste and whether they qualify for exemption from disposal requirements.
The review also called for improvements in radiation protection measures, including facility design, sample handling, contamination controls, monitoring procedures and the inclusion of radon and radon progeny monitoring.
“The Proponent’s radiation protection documentation identifies several controls and monitoring elements, however, some refinements are identified to align with international standards,” the report states.
The agency emphasised that its assessment applies only to the proposed pilot operations and does not constitute a recommendation to approve or reject the project.
It said the final decision on authorisation remains the responsibility of Namibian authorities.
