Green Hill by Waste and Mudfrom the Environmentally Sustainable View Point as PPP Project( Before and after High Wave Disaster )Before Tsunami Disaster at Ishinomaki

After Tsunami Disaster at Ishinomaki

2015.03.19

Masaki Arioka
Executive Director of NPO SLIM JapanDebris Treatment Process Comparison
between Conventional Method and Green Hill Method
Tsunami Mud/Sludge andSoil Covered by Soil Water

Debris Spread Sites

Rough Separetion at the Siteduring Searching Missing People[Transportation]
Temporal Stoch Place(Rough Separation)

Green Hill Area
(Fort by Debris
into Soil Mortar)

Soil Mortarby Mud/Sludge[Transportation]
Intermedeate treatment Place
Detailed Classifyby Type
Recycle & Reuse(Concrete Rubble)

Reinforcing(Reinforced AreArea)

Incineration
Soil Coveredby Soil Wate

[Transportation]
Final Disposal Area
(Incinerater Residuesand Non-Classified Waste)【Conventional Method 】(Master Plan by ME 2011.05)

BankingGreen Hill

【Green Hill Method 】

Image of Green Hill
By using Debris and Sludge
Make the Hill Core by
Using of Debris andSoil Mortal

W ooded Area

M ake the Hill Core (Fort) by
Using of Debris andSoil Mortal

Mixed Debris Coreby using Soil MortalExcavated
Sand Bag
Seepage Control
Hard Debris Coreby using Soil Mortal

Hard Debris Coreby using Soil Mortal

3Morenuma Park in Sapporo, Hokkido（2.7millm 3 Waste Embakment ）Play MountainMt. MoereIntermediate treatment Place

Separation by Hand

Incinerator at the siteWhat are Advantages of Green Hill Concept(1) Reduction of Traffic Hazard by ‘Local Reuse of Debris with less
Separation and less Transportation’ under Extraordinary Situation.
(2) The Simpler Works, the More Efficient Results from the View Point ofTime, Cost, Energy and Environment.
(3) Sustainability by Maintenance and Risk Management more than 30% of
the Total Cost at least 30 years.
Breakdown of Debris and Mud Treatment(almost half cost compared with conventional method)
Cost Itemnotes

Proportion

Ⅰ Preliminary

Planning,Survay and Dsign

2.2%

Ⅱ Direct Cost

Debris Teratment and banking

56.7%

1 Mixed Debris Core

Baried in tsunami mad soil morta l

29.3%

2 Hard Debris Core

Baried in tsunami mad soil morta l

7.8%

3 Banking, Drainage and greening

Including slaty soil by tsunami

6.5%

4 Temorary works, Site and overhead office enpense

13.1%

Ⅲ Maintenance and Risk contingency allowance

30 eyars

31.6%

Ⅳ Land cost for banking area

Except public land such as roads

9.5%

Total

100.0%

Finance Scheme for Green Hill Concept
2011.10
2011.04

Country with
Low Sea Level and Flat Land
Maximum Altitude : 15 m

Nuku’alofa

Samoa Earthquake
2009/9/29
MG 8.1, H max = 4.5m ~6m
Death toll : more then 189

Although Tongan People are afraid of Tsunami Disaster, only the thing they
can do is to evacuate to relatively higher place far from their residential area.

Green Hill by Waste and Mud (WMGL)
Garbage reclamation pit

Raw garbage

Soil by excavation of the pit
Dayliy solid
rubbishCementConstructionwastesMud in theswamp
Recycle ofWaste

Soil Mortal
Sedumentation inthe ragoon

Dead trees

Scrapped cars

【Recycle Mud 】

Minimamizing Damage【Reuse Waste 】

High wave

Disater preventation
and reduction

Sea level rise
Earth warming【Seaside Disaster 】

TsunamiTypical Seaside of South Pacific Island

Mud in Swamp

Waste

Scraped Car

Dead TreeDaily Waste Landfill Place
２０１２．０７．０６

Two andhalf years

２０１４．１２．１１THREE PHASE OF EXECUTION SCHEDULE OFCAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT (For three years)
SLIM Proposal to ERCA (Environmental Restoration and Conservative Agency)(1) Consensus Formation with Related Authorities and Community Leadersand Confirmation of Feasibility by Basic Study(2) Confirmation of Various Engineering Factors Required for Project
Realization and Effectiveness of Soil Mortar by Using Locally AvailableSludge(3) Pilot Levee Construction as Starting Point for Mid to Long Term Project
Realization
Green Hill by Waste and Mud from the view point of PPP

DIB to be considered as an alternative financial facility.

©Social Finance & Center for Global Development 2012