DOCSLIB.ORG

The Safety Case for Deep Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: 2013 State of the Art

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Safety Case for Deep Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: 2013 State of the Art Radioactive Waste Management NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 March 2014 www.oecd-nea.org The Safety Case for Deep Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: 2013 State of the Art Symposium Proceedings 7-9 October 2013 Paris, France Unclassified NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12-Mar-2014 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English - Or. English NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY Unclassified NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 Radioactive Waste Management Committee The Safety Case for Deep Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: 2013 State of the Art Symposium Proceedings 7-9 October 2013 Paris, France For any further information, please contact Gloira KWONG ([email protected]) English JT03354141 Complete document available on OLIS in its original format - Or This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. English NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 2 THE SAFETY CASE FOR DEEP GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE: 2013 STATE OF THE ART NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 Radioactive Waste Management The Safety Case for Deep Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: 2013 State of the Art Symposium Proceedings 7-9 October 2013 Paris, France NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT THE SAFETY CASE FOR DEEP GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE: 2013 STATE OF THE ART 3 NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 4 THE SAFETY CASE FOR DEEP GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE: 2013 STATE OF THE ART NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 Foreword In 2007, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), in concert with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European Commission (EC), organised a Symposium, entitled “Safety Cases for the Deep Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Where Do We Stand?” (NEA, 2008). Since then, there have been major developments in a number of national geological disposal programmes and significant experience has been obtained in preparing and reviewing cases for the operational and long-term safety of proposed and operating geological repositories. Especially, three national programmes are now, or will shortly be, at the stage of licence application for a deep geological repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel or high-level and other long-lived radioactive waste. Thus, the purpose of this Symposium, “The Safety Case for Deep Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: 2013 State of the Art”, was to assess the practice, understanding and roles of the safety case, as applied internationally at all stages of repository development, including the interplay of technical, regulatory and societal issues, as they have developed since 2007. The Symposium was organised and hosted by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and co-sponsored by the EC and the IAEA. The 2013 Symposium attracted 168 participants from 65 organisations and 17 countries and international bodies. The Symposium was chaired by Klaus-Jürgen Röhlig, who is also the Chair of the NEA Integration Group for the Safety Case (IGSC). The planning and implementation of the symposium were supported by the efforts of staff of the NEA and of the programme committee. This synopsis was drafted by Trevor Sumerling (Safety Assessment Management Ltd, UK), finalised under the direction of the Chair and Gloria Kwong of the NEA and approved by the programme committee. THE SAFETY CASE FOR DEEP GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE: 2013 STATE OF THE ART 5 NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 Programme Committee Members Lucy Bailey Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, NDA, United Kingdom Ute Blohm-Hieber European Commission, DG Energy Fabrice Boissier National Radioactive Waste Management Agency, Andra, France Gérard Bruno International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA Manuel Capouet Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile materials, ONDRAF/NIRAS, Belgium Christophe Davies European Commission, DG Research Björn Dverstorp Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, SSM, Sweden Elizabeth Forinash Department of Energy, DOE, USA Paul Gierszewski Nuclear Waste Management Organisation, NWMO, Canada Gloria Kwong Nuclear Energy Agency, NEA Ann-Kathrin Leuz Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate, ENSI, Switzerland Meritxell Martell Merience Strategic Thinking, Spain Christina Necheva European Commission, DG Energy Peter Ormai International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA Claudio Pescatore Nuclear Energy Agency, NEA Klaus-Jürgen Röhlig Clausthal University of Technology, TUC, Germany Dan Schultheisz Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, USA Christophe Serres Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety Institute, IRSN, France Michael Siemann Nuclear Energy Agency, NEA Abraham van Luik Department of Energy, WIPP, USA Magnus Vesterlind International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA 6 THE SAFETY CASE FOR DEEP GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE: 2013 STATE OF THE ART NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 Table of Contents Synopsis ..........................................................................................................................................11 Session 3: National Safety Case Presentations .......................................................................19 Session 3.1: Building Generic Safety Cases: Examples from the United Kingdom, the United States and Korea .............................................................................21 L. Bailey Developing a generic environmental safety case..................................................................23 P.N. Swift, W.J. Boyle Using safety assessment techniques to build confidence in repository performance: The United States experience .........................................................................29 J-T. Jeong, H-J. Choi, Y-K. Koh, G-Y. Kim, K-S. Kim The role of KURT and A-KRS in the development of generic safety cases in Korea .......................................................................................................................................37 Session 3.2: Safety Case for Preparing and Performing a Site Selection Process: The Swiss Example and Experience ...............................................................................................45 P. Zuidema, J. Schneider The role of safety analyses in site selection: Nagra’s experience from the ongoing Swiss site selection process ......................................................................................47 A-K. Leuz, M. Rahn The regulatory perspective: Role of regulatory review of the safety case for preparing and performing the Swiss site selection process ..........................................53 Session 3.3: Developing the Safety Concept and the Design of a Geological Repository: The Belgian Example ...................................................................................................63 M. Capouet, C. Depaus, M. Van Geet, P. Lalieux RD&D steering of a geological disposal programme in poorly indurated clays ................65 F. Bernier, F. Lemy Implications of the regulatory framework and activities on R&D supporting repository implementation ......................................................................................................69 Session 3.4: Safety Case for License Application for a Final Repository: The French Example ........................................................................................................................75 F. Boissier, S. Voinis Safety case for license application for a final repository: The French example ...............77 L. Tanguy How a regulator is preparing for reviewing a license application file: The case of ASN .........................................................................................................................83 Session 3.5: Safety Case for License Application for a Final Repository: The Swedish Case ............................................................................................................................87 A. Hedin, J. Andersson SKB’s safety case for a final repository license application .................................................89 B. Dverstorpand, B. Strömberg SSM’s licensing review of a spent nuclear fuel repository in Sweden ...............................97 THE SAFETY CASE FOR DEEP GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE: 2013 STATE OF THE ART 7 NEA/RWM/R(2013)9 Session 3.6: Safety Case for License Application for a Final Repository: The Finnish Case ...........................................................................................................................109 J. Vira, M. Snellman TURVA-2012 safety case for licensing a spent fuel repository at Olkiluoto, Finland .......................................................................................................................................111 J. Heinonen The regulatory review of construction license application and the supporting safety case .................................................................................................................................119 Session 3.7: Safety Case for Re-certifying and Operating a Facility: The United States Example ...........................................................................................................125 R. Patterson WIPP – Safety case evolution of an operating repository facility ......................................127 R.T. Peake Continued
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Article Was Published in an Elsevier Journal. the Attached Copy
    This article was published in an Elsevier journal. The attached copy is furnished to the author for non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution, sharing with colleagues and providing to institution administration. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Progress in Nuclear Energy 49 (2007) 365e374 www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene Review Permanent underground repositories for radioactive waste Norbert T. Rempe* 1403 N. Country Club Circle, Carlsbad, NM 88220, USA Abstract Solid radioactive waste first entered a deep geologic repository in 1959. Liquid radioactive waste has been injected into confined underground reservoirs since 1963. Solid wastes containing chemically toxic constituents with infinite half lives have been isolated underground since 1972. Performance to date of these and other repositories has not caused any of their owners and operators to transfer or contemplate transferring the waste confined in them to presumably safer locations. Natural and engineered analogues offer sound evidence that deep geologic isolation is effective, safe, and compatible with responsible environmental stewardship. Underground isolation of dangerous, including radioactive, wastes is therefore increasingly being used as a safe and reliable method of final disposal. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Realization of the German Repository Concept - Current Status and Future Prospects
    WM'99 CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 28 - MARCH 4, 1999 REALIZATION OF THE GERMAN REPOSITORY CONCEPT - CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS - Peter W. Brennecke/Helmut Röthemeyer/Bruno R. Thomauske Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) Salzgitter, Germany ABSTRACT Since the early sixties, the radioactive waste disposal policy in the Federal Republic of Germany has been based on the decision that all types of radioactive waste are to be disposed of in deep geological formations. According to the 1979 German radioactive waste management and disposal concept the Gorleben salt dome is investigated to decide upon its suitability to host a repository for all types of radioactive waste. In addition, the licensing procedure for the Konrad repository project has practically been finished, i.e. a decision could be taken. Since German unification on October 03, 1990, the Morsleben repository has to be considered, too. From January 1994 through September 1998 short-lived low and intermediate level radioactive waste with alpha emitter concentrations up to 4,0 · 108 Bq/m3 was disposed of in this facility. On September 27, 1998, federal elections took place in Germany. As a result, a coalition of the Social Democrats and the Greens has come into power. Based on the coalition agreement of October 20, 1998, nuclear energy is intended to be phased out in Germany. Thus, the new radioactive waste management policy comprises important disposal-related alterations and changes. INTRODUCTION The status and future prospects of the Morsleben repository as well as the Konrad and Gorleben repository projects are strongly influenced by technical, legal and political aspects. At present, due to the decrease of radioactive waste amounts to be emplaced in a repository, there is no time pressure for the disposal of wastes.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Methods to Detect Tunnelling at a Geological Repository Site Applicability in Safeguards
    #2008207/ APRIL 2021 Geophysical methods to detect tunnelling at a geological repository site Applicability in safeguards Heikkinen Eero (AFRY) Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Report #2008207 Nuclear Waste and Material Regulation Heikkinen Eero (AFRY) April 6, 2021 Contents ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 PREFAFE ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Nuclear safeguards to geological disposal ........................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Monitoring for long term nuclear safety ........................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Active geophysical surveys .................................................................................................................................. 10 1.4 Olkiluoto spent nuclear fuel repository .......................................................................................................... 13 2 Possibilities to detect an undeclared activity .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Underground Waste Disposal Authors: Kemal Yildizdag & Prof
    Underground waste disposal Authors: Kemal Yildizdag & Prof. Dr. habil. Heinz Konietzky (TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Geotechnical Institute) 1 Introduction to underground waste disposal ........................................................ 2 1.1 Radioactivity and radioactive waste types ..................................................... 2 1.2 Management, disposal and storage of radioactive wastes ............................ 5 2 Worldwide laws/regulations, applications and repositories .................................. 9 2.1 Repository design, multi-barrier concept & FEPs .......................................... 9 2.2 Host rocks for disposal and storage of radioactive wastes .......................... 13 2.3 Recent disposal and repository operations in Germany and worldwide ...... 18 3 Geotechnical aspects ........................................................................................ 21 3.1 Geotechnical terms and definitions concerning undergr. waste disposals ... 21 3.2 Geotechnical computations, experiments and measurements concerning underground waste disposals ............................................................................... 23 4 References ........................................................................................................ 32 5 Appendix ........................................................................................................... 37 Editor: Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Heinz Konietzky Layout: Angela Griebsch, Gunther Lüttschwager TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Institut für Geotechnik,
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Climate Change on Far-Field and Biosphere Processes for a HLW
    Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH Impact of climate change on far-fi eld and biosphere processes for a HLW-repository in rock salt GRS - 241 Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH Impact of climate change on far-fi eld and bisophere processes for a HLW-repository in rock salt Ulrich Noseck Christine Fahrenholz Eckhard Fein Judith Flügge Gerhard Pröhl Anke Schneider März 2009 Remark: This report, with the German title „Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen zum Nachweis der Langzeitsicherheit von Endlagern (Kurztitel WiGru5)“, was prepared under the contract No. 02 E 9954 with the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi). The work was conducted by the Ge- sellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktor- sicherheit (GRS) mbH. The authors are responsible for the content of this report. GRS - 241 ISBN 978-3-939355-15-1 Keywords: biosphere, climate, climate change, glacial, hydrogeology, interglacial, permafrost, radioactive waste, safety assessment, transport Preface The assessment of the long-term safety of a repository for radioactive or hazardous waste requires a comprehensive system understanding and capable and qualified numerical tools. All relevant processes which contribute to mobilisation and release of contaminants from the repository, transport through the host rock and adjacent rock formations as well as exposition in the biosphere have to be implemented in the programme package. The objective of the project “Scientific basis for the assessment of the long-term safety of repositories”, identification number 02 E 9954, was to follow national and international developments in this area, to evaluate research projects, which contribute to knowledge, model approaches and data, and to perform specific investigations to improve the methodologies of the long-term safety assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Updating the Hydrogeologic Framework for the Northern Portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer
    Final Report Updating the Hydrogeologic Framework for the Northern Portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer Prepared by Steven C. Young, Ph.D., P.E., P.G. Tom Ewing, Ph.D., P.G Scott Hamlin, Ph.D., P.G. Ernie Baker, P.G. Daniel Lupton Prepared for: Texas Water Development Board P.O. Box 13231, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3231 June 2012 Texas Water Development Board Final Report Updating the Hydrogeologic Framework for the Northern Portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer Steven C. Young, Ph.D., P.E., P.G. Daniel Lupton INTERA Incorporated Tom Ewing, Ph.D., P.G. Frontera Exploration Consultants Scot Hamlin, Ph.D., P.G Ernie Baker, P.G. June 2012 This page is intentionally blank. ii Final Report – Updating the Hydrogeologic Framework for the Northern Portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... xiii 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Approach for Defining Stratigraphy ......................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Approach for Defining Lithology and Generating Sand Maps ................................ 1-3 2.0 Gulf Coast Aquifer Geologic Setting ................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 2-1
    [Show full text]
  • Communication on the Safety Case for a Deep Geological Repository
    Radioactive Waste Management 2017 Communication on the Safety Case for a Deep Geological Repository Communication on the Safety Case for a Deep Geological Repository NEA Radioactive Waste Management Communication on the Safety Case for a Deep Geological Repository © OECD 2017 NEA No. 7336 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 35 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958.
    [Show full text]
  • Jahresbericht
    jahresbericht Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Fukushima und die Folgen Neue Stromtrassen quer durch Deutschland Auf der Suche – Entsorgung radioaktiver Abfälle in Deutschland | Verantwortung für Mensch und Umwelt | Titelfoto: Michael Janssen / Photocase.de Impressum Herausgeber: Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Postfach 10 01 49 D-38201 Salzgitter Telefon: +49 (0)3018 333-0 Telefax: +49 (0)3018 333-1885 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.bfs.de Redaktion: Lutz Ebermann Gestaltung: Quermedia Querallee 38 34119 Kassel Druck: MAREIS DRUCK GmbH Zeissstraße 8 89264 Weißenhorn Fotos: BfS und genannte Quellen Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (2012) jahresbericht Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz jahresbericht Seite 9 Fukushima und die Folgen Am 11. März 2011 ereignete sich vor der Nordost- küste der japanischen Hauptinsel Honshu ein schweres Erdbeben mit nachfolgendem Tsunami. Im unmittelbaren Einwirkungsbereich dieser Na- turkatastrophe lagen 15 der insgesamt 54 japa- nischen Reaktoren. Der Beitrag geht ein auf Unfallablauf und -ursachen und gibt einen ersten Überblick über die Freisetzungen radioaktiver Stoffe und die Folgen in der Umgebung der Anlage für die Bevölkerung in und außerhalb von Japan. 97 Weitere ARBEITSSCHWerPUNKte DES bFs 97 "Sonne - Aber sicher!" - Das BfS engagiert sich für Hautkrebsprävention 101 Lungenkrebs-Früherkennung mittels Computertomographie 102 Berufliche Strahlenbelastung in der Medizin 103 Strahlenschutz beim Aufbau des digitalen Behördenfunks in Deutschland 106 Bedeutung von Ringversuchen für die Überwachung inkorporierter radioaktiver
    [Show full text]
  • The Caspian Legal Status and Riparian Producers' Outlook on the European Commission's Strategy Towards the Fourth/Southern G
    THE CASPIAN LEGAL STATUS AND RIPARIAN PRODUCERS’ OUTLOOK ON THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S STRATEGY TOWARDS THE FOURTH/SOUTHERN GAS CORRIDOR Mariana Liakopoulou TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 2 1. SOUTHERN GAS CORRIDOR: EMERGENCE AND REGULATORY FRAMING OF AN EU-CONCEIVED IDEA ......................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Conceptualization and significance of energy security ............................................... 3 1.2 First institutional steps ......................................................................................................... 4 1.3 The 2006 transit crisis ........................................................................................................... 5 1.4 The 2009 transit crisis ........................................................................................................... 6 1.5 The near-crisis of 2014 .......................................................................................................... 7 2. SOUTHERN GAS CORRIDOR TODAY: EVALUATION OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPLOITATION OF THE PIPELINE TRANSPORT SYSTEM ............. 9 2.1 Present state of affairs .......................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Shah Deniz 1 and South Caucasus Pipeline ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • "The German Approach to the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes."
    The German Approach to the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Ernst Warnecke Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Bundesallee 100 D-3300 Braunschweig Finnish-German Seminar on Nuclear Waste Management Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland September 23-25, 1986 THE GERMAN APPROACH TO THE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES Ernst Warnecke Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Bundesallee 100 D-3300 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of Germany Abstract In the Federal Republic of Germany the PTB is responsible for the construction and operation of the repositories in which radioactive wastes will be disposed of. Two repository ries are planned: - Gorleben (salt dome; for all types of radioactive wastes) - Konrad (abandoned iron ore mine; for radioactive wastes with negligible thermal influence upon the host rock). The safe operation of the repositories has to be demon- strated to the licensing authorities. These are the respon- sible Ministers of the Federal States (Lander) and the mining authorities. According to the "safety criteria for the disposal of radioactive wastes in a mine", the safety of a repository has to be demonstrated by a site specific safety assessment for the normal operation of a repository, for incidents in the operational phase, and the post-opera- tional phase. These assessments result in waste acceptance requirements. The compliance of the waste packages to be disposed of with the waste acceptance requirements is checked with a waste package quality control either by random tests on waste packages or a qualification and in- spection of waste conditioning processes. Preliminary waste acceptance requirements have been set up for the planned Konrad repository. In the Kernforschungsan- lage Julich (KFA) a group for the quality control of radio- active waste has been established on behalf of the PTB.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Cost and Financing of the Disposal of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste
    Report on the cost and financing of the disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste August 2015 In the event of discrepancies between this translation and the original German version, the latter shall prevail. Preamble 2 Preamble Contents Preamble .................................................................................................................. 4 1 Public sector ...................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Cost ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Financing .............................................................................................................. 7 2 Private operators ............................................................................................... 8 2.1 Cost ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Financing ............................................................................................................ 10 3 Cost of disposal................................................................................................ 10 3.1 Konrad disposal facility ....................................................................................... 10 3.2 Morsleben disposal facility .................................................................................. 11 3.3 Asse II mine .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Greening Deserts Critically Endangered Species Research And
    Greening Deserts Critically Endangered Species Research and Protection Program (CES-RPP) started an extra project for endangered tree species to focus on the most important issue of global biodiversity conservation and establish more biodiversity in habitats and forests worldwide. This will also promote many other ecosystems, and stabilize as well as improve the atmosphere or air, biosphere, global climate and water cycle. The contribution of trees to the improvement of soil, life, air and water quality should be clear to everyone. There is as much life in a handful of soil from a rainforest as in hundreds of soccer fields, but not so much in fields and meadows. It depends also on the history and vegetation. The main focus of the special species protection project for critically endangered tree species is the building of special seed storage facilities (boxes and cabinets) and other innovative solutions in various areas. The exchange and sharing of experiences are particularly important. With the Urban Greening Camp we can store and preserve seeds professionally. In the field of Indoor Gardening and Vertical Farming we can cultivate many species of trees, especially for the European and Mediterranean regions. We can share seeds and plants with botanical gardens and professional nurseries around the world. Numerous international institutions, organizations, universities, biodiversity and plant scientists, and tree and forest specialists have already been informed about many of these aspects and projects in 2020. This announcement and information of the new Greening Deserts project for critically endangered species can be shared worldwide. The project title is 1001+ Critically Endangered Tree Species Seed Storage and Tree Cultivation Project.
    [Show full text]