# An investigation ofhull 

# cleaning and associated waste treatment options for preventing the spread ofnonindigenous marine species

Oliver Floerl, Ned Norton, Graeme Inglis, Barbara Hayden, Crispin Middleton, Matt Smith, Niki Alcock and Isla Fitridge



## Final Research Reportfor Ministry ofFisheries Project ZBS2002-04 Objectives 1 & 

## 2

National Institute ofWater and AtmosphericResearch January 2004 (Revised) 

# •

### ReportTitle

Authors



### 1. Date 2. Contractor 3. ProjectTitle



### 4. ProjectCode 

### 5. ProjectLeader 

### 6. DurationofProject Startdate Completion date 

### 7. Objective 

### 8. ExecutiveSummary

## FinalResearchReport An 

### investigation ofhull cleaning and associated treatment options for preventing the spread of non-indigenous marine species Oliver Floed, Ned Norton, Graeme Inglis, Barbara Hayden, Crispin Middleton, Matt Smith, Niki Alcock and IslaFitridge 11th

### November2003 National Institute ofWater and Atmospheric Research Hull cleaning as a factor in introduction and domestic spread of marine non-indigenous species (NIS) and investigation oftreatment options ZBS2002-04 Graeme Inglis
01 November 2002 30November2003 Objectives 1& 

### 2 

# r,

In January 2003 the Ministry ofFisheries (MFish) contracted NIWA to assess the risk posedto marine biosecuritybyNew Zealand's commercial hull cleaningfacilities. The specific objectives ofthis project were: 1. To investigate for a variety of hull cleaning situations the types, amounts and viability of fouling organisms discharged and assess whether the effluent control" methodology used is successful in reducing the amount ofviable material reaching the coastal marine area. 2. To discuss and make recommendations on control methodologies that would be most effective in minimizing the release of viable organisms from hull cleaning situations taking into account the efficacy, practicality and cost of using effective methodologies in an existing ornew hull cleaning situation. Between May and August 2003, NIWA staffvisited hull cleaning facilities in Lyttelton, Auckland, Whangaparaoa and Tauranga, where vessels are removed from the water for" cleaning (dry-dock and haul-out facilities) or where fouling organisms are removed 

### in situ by divers. In Objective 1, 19 vessels were sampled, ranging from 10

- 105 m in length. Sampling offouling organisms and liquideffluentwas done at all stages ofthehull
- 1 -cleaning and wastetreatmentprocess. Macrofoulingwas sampledbefore, and immediately following its removal from vessel hulls by freshwater blasting or manual scraping (inwater cleaning). Liquid fouling waste was examined before it entered settlementtanks and filters, and following treatmentpriorto discharge into the sea. In all cleaning operations examined, physical removal of fouling assemblages from vessel hulls did not result in mortality of all organisms. The overall viability of organisms removed from hulls was lowest in haul-out (16 %) and dry-dock (43 %) facilities, where fouling organisms were often exposed to air, high-pressure freshwater blasting and trampling. However, viability was high for (1) hard-bodied organisms not directly attached to hull surfaces (epibiota), and (2) organisms associated with clumps ofmussels in the protected seachests oflarge ships. Survival and viability oforganisms following in-water cleaning by divers, which did not involve exposure to air or highpressure waterblasting, was significantlyhigher (72 %) than in shore-based operations. The multi-chamber settlement tanks used by the facilities examined to remove solid particles from liquids (water blasteffluent) were effective at killing and removing J?iota suspended in the liquid effluent. Concentrations of intact animals, propagules and unicellular organisms in the first settlement tank chamber were 39

- 100 % lower than those in the cleaning run-off. Liquids sampled in the last chamber of the settlement tanks had 99

- 100 % of all animal and unicellular biota removed, and it is likely that few or none of the remaining organisms were viable. In some cases, freshwater taxa were encountered in the tanks. No biological material occurred in the final effluent of facilities that subject settlement tank contents to filtration (sandfilter) prior to discharge intothe sea. The.results ofObjective 1suggest that: (1) In-waterhull cleaning without collection offouling waste poses the highest risk to marine biosecurity. This excludes operations that collect and contain fouling organisms following their removal from vessel hull, as such operations were not included in this study. (2) Operations that clean vessels in shore-based facilities and discharge solid and liquid fouling waste into the sea without any treatmentpose amore than minor risk to marine biosecurity. (3) Operations that clean vessels outofthe water and employ settling tanks to separate fine particulates from liquid waste prior to discharge into the sea pose a relatively low risk to marine biosecurity, providing there is an adequate residency time of liquid waste in the tanks. (4) Operations that clean vessels out ofthe water and employ settling tanks and filters (e.g. sandfilters) to separate fine particulates from liquid waste prior to discharge into the seapose negligiblerisk to marinebiosecurity. The residency period of water blasting effluent in settlement tanks is likely to vary

. between seasons because far more vessels are cleaned per day during summer months

than during winter. Actual residency time will be a function of the capacity of.the settlement tanks and the number ofvessels cleaned per day (and, therefore, the volume

-2-!' 

### of water entering the tanks). We recommend that a repetition of settlement tank samplingbe carried outduring summermonths when far more boats are cleanedperday andthe residency period ofcleaningeffluentin settlementtanks is likelyto be shorter. A review ofexisting legislation and waste treatment methods used at existing cleaning facilities in New Zealand and elsewhere was conducted as part of Objective 2. Our review suggests that although few of New Zealand's Regional Coastal Plans deal explicitly with managing risks to marinebiosecurity, concerns about the release oftoxic contaminants from cleaning facilities and their effects on the coastal marine environment have meant that many of the larger Regional Authorities have moved to discourage return ofuntreated solid and liquid wastes to the marineenvironment. We recommend fouling waste treatment systems described in (3) above are a desirable standard for hull cleaning facilities where there is a risk ofcontamination by unwanted marine organisms. For operators that already have some fonn ofcollection and settling tank treatment system, the most cost-effective option is likely to be retain and/or modify the existing system to achieve the characteristics listed in (3) above. For operators that do not currently have treatment systems, the simplest and most cost-effective option is likely to be that described in (3) above. This recommendation is based simply on the fact that currently this is the most commonly used system in New Zealand and it is a system that has been shown to be effective at reducing biosecurity risk (Objective 1). This recommendation does not preclude the use of other, possibly more sophisticated systems. There are likely to be significantbenefits ofincluding additional filtration steps orother more sophisticated treatment technologies as 'add-ons' to the treatment process. First, such steps will offer an additional buffer of confidence in reducing risks to marine biosecurity, for example by providing a final 'catch all' removal ofparticles greater in

. size than the 'particle standard' of 60 Jl111 

### proposed by McClary and Nelligan (2001).

Second, they will improve the removal of fine particulates and associated antifouling chemicals. This is important for operators who not only need to manage marine biosecurity risk, but who also may need consents for discharges to the sea under the Resource Management Act, or may need permission to divert hull-cleaning waste to local community wastewatertreatmentplants. 

### OBJECTIVE 1: Introduction 

### Hull fouling is an important pathway for the introduction and spread ofnon-indigenous marine species in New Zealand and worldwide (AMOG Consulting 2002; Minchin and Gollasch 2003). Local establishment of non-indigenous species (NIS) can occur following release of reproductive propagules from intact fouling assemblages on vessels' hulls, or by survival of viable organisms removed during vessel cleaning (Environment and Natural Resources Committee 1997; Minchin and Gollasch 2003). Around 30,000 vessels are removed from the sea each year in New Zealand for cleaning, resulting in approximately 140 tonnes ofbiogenic fouling residues (McClary and Nelligan 2001). In 

### addition, an unknown number ofvessels are cleaned each year in tidal grids, careening bays, or by divers. Treatment and disposal offouling waste varies widely among facilities and cleaning situations. Some facilities dispose offouling waste
- 3 -as landfill. Others discharge solid waste and/or filtered orunfiltered liquid effluent into the sea. Because of the variation in treatment and disposal methods it is unclear what riskhull cleaningfacilities pose to New Zealand's marine biosecurity. In March 2002, MFish released a public consultation paper on proposals to regulate hull-cleaning activities under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to reduce the risk of harmful marine species being introduced to, and being spread throughout New Zealand coastal waters. The proposed regulations sought to prohibit the cleaning of vessels if fouling material removed from them was discharged directly into the coastal marine area without containment, collection, treatment ofliquid effluents and disposal to land of all collected material. Cleaning vessels by careening, in-water cleaning by swimmer or diver, hosing or water blasting on a hardstand or slip where contaminated water drains into the sea without treatment would, therefore, contravene the proposed regulations. Public submissions to the consultation paper noted that there was no evidence that fouling organisms survive the cleaning process, where they may be subjected to scrubbing, water-blasting, drying out on a hardstand, being stored in freshwater sumps and filtration. Also, because ofthe range ofcleaning and treatment procedures used in

. hull-cleaning facilities within New Zealand, survival of organisms is likely to vary widely from operation to operation. In response to the concerns raised by submitters, MFish commissioned NIW A to undertake surveys ofhull-cleaningfacilities in NewZealandto: 1. Quantify the relative survival of organisms removed under different types of cleaning and treatment, 2. Improve ourunderstanding ofthe types ofhull fouling organisms that are likely to survive the various cleaningprocedures and 3. Identify the methods ofcleaning, collecting, treatment ordisposal offouling that offerthe most effective means ofkilling NIS should they bepresent. Theprojectwas divided into two specific objectives: 1. To investigate for a variety of hull cleaning situations the types, amounts and viability of fouling organisms discharged and assess whether the effluent control methodology used is successful in reducing the amount of viable material reaching the coastal marine area. 2. To discuss and make**recomm~ndations** on control methodologies that would be most effective in minimizing the release of viable organisms from hull cleaning situations taking into account the efficacy, practicality and cost of using effective methodologies in an existingornew hull cleaning situation. 

### 9. Methods Cleaningfacilities visited In consultation with MFish, eight hull cleaning facilities were chosen from the list of operations visited by McClary and Nelligan (2001) as part ofMFish Research Project ZBS2000-03. The operations comprisedthree types ofcleaning situations:



### -4-(1) 

### tidal grids (intertidal facilities) (2) hard-stand cleaningoperations, and (3)

. in-waterhull cleaning, and three methods for treatingfouling waste: (4) no containment offouling waste and discharge ofall material into the sea (this includes in-waterhull cleaning), (5) separation ofsolid and liquid waste and discharge ofunfiltered liquids into the sea, and (6) separation of solid and liquid waste and discharge offiltered liquids into the sea. The facilities chosen for sampling were located in Lyttelton, Tauranga, Whangarei, Whangaparaoa and Auckland (Table 1.1). 

### In each facility, fouling waste arising from hull cleaning may be subject to one, two orthree successive treatment stages. Treatment stage 1 consists of the actual physical removal of fouling Il).aterial from vessel hulls using water blast (vessels removed from the water)'or hand-held scrapers (in-water cleaning). No containment offouling material occurs in the in-watercleaningoperations investigated in this study; all material thus remains in the sea (Fig. 1.1). 

### In facilities where vessels are removed from the water for cleaning, solid waste is collected and disposed of as landfill. Liquid fouling waste is collected in multi-chamber settlement tanks, where finer solids are separated from the liquid (Treatment Stage 2). After the liquid has passed through all chambers ofthe settlement tanks it eitherpasses through a filter (Treatment Stage 3) prior to discharge into the marine environment or is discharged without filtration (Fig. 1.1). A detailed account on the treatment ofsolid and liquid fouling waste in each of the facilities that remove vessels from the water for cleaning is providedbelow: Lyttelton dry-dock 

### The Lyttelton dry-dock is operated by the Lyttelton Port Company. It 

### is the only drydock in NZ's South Island and can accommodate vessels ofup to 120 m in length. Ships are manoeuvred into the dock basin and the dock is then closed using sealed lock gates. The dock water is usually drained overnight. During draining, wooden beams are wedged between the dock walls and the vessels to keep the ships in an uprightposition. Services offered by the dry-dock include: mechanical repairs, removal of fouling and application ofantifouling paint. Cleaning ofvessels is carried out using up to four water blasters (freshwater; 4,000 psi). Treatment offouling waste: Solid fouling waste is collected and disposed ofas landfill. The liquid runofffrom the water blast is collected in a settling tank, where magnesium sulphate is added and coarse solids settle out. The liquid stage then passes into a second settling tank, where the flocculating agent Magnafloc® is added, and where finer particulates are allowed to settle. Water then passes into a final settling tank equipped with settlement shakers that remove further material from suspension. Liquid contents of the final tank are discharged back into the marine environment without physical screening or filtration. Solid waste is removed from the tanks on average every three months.



### -5-WestparkMarina In 

### the Westpark Marina, vessels up to 18.5 m in length are removed from the water using a travel lift. Services offered include mechanical repairs, removal offouling and application of antifouling paint. Cleaning ofvessels is carried out using a water blaster (freshwater; 3,000psi). Treatment offouling waste: Solid fouling waste is collected and disposed ofas landfill. The liquid runoff from the water blast is collected in a triple-chamber, in-ground 'grit separator' (settling tank). Coarse solids settle out in the first chamber. The liquid stage then passes through another two chambers, separated by a weir that allows fine particulates to settle out and oils to separate (through addition of 'Matasorb cushions'). The final tank has an overflow outletfrom where the wateris discharged intothe marine environment (via the storrnwater system) without physical screening or filtration. No flocculation agents are added to the settling tanks at any stage. Solid waste is removed from the tanks on average every three months ormore frequently ifrequired to maintain efficiency ofthe system. Tauranga Marina 

### The Tauranga Marina offers a travel lift and tidal grids for vessel maintenance. The travel lift can remove vessels up to 20 m in length from the water. Services offered include mechanical repairs, removal of fouling and application of antifouling paint. Cleaning ofvessels is carried outusing a waterblaster (freshwater; 3,000 psi). Treatment offouling waste: Solid fouling waste is collected and disposed ofas landfill. The liquid runofffrom the water blast is collected in a settling tank, where coarse solids settle out. The liquid stage then passes into another two settling tanks, which are separated by a weir allowing fine particulates to settle. The final tank has an overflow outlet from where the water is discharged into a 'sand trap' (a nearby beach). This sand trap euphemism acts as a sandfilter, and the top "few inches" of sand are periodically removed by a bobcat and disposed ofas landfill. No flocculation agents are added to the settling tanks at any stage. Solid waste is removedfrom the tanks on average every three months. OramsMarine Maintenance 

### Orams Marine offers two travel lifts and two slipways to remove vessels up to 49 m in length from the water. Services offered include mechanical repairs, removal offouling and application of antifouling paint. Cleaning of vessels is carried out using a water blaster (freshwater; 8,000 psi). Treatment offouling waste: Solid fouling waste is collected and disposed ofas landfill. The liquid runofffrom the waterblast is collected in a settling tank, where coarse solids settle out. This tank has an overflow outlet that leads into a second tank, where fine particulates are allowed to settle. Overflow from the second tank passes through a sandfilter and is then discharged into the sea. No flocculation agents are added to the settlingtanks at any stage. Solidwaste is removedfrom thetanks on average everythree months.

-6-Changestothe selectionofoperationsvisited Contact with all facilities was established in February 2003 to outline the purpose ofthe research and to negotiate an appropriate time for sampling. During conversation with the Whangarei Cruising Club it became apparent that, while seeking resource consent, this facility had recently closed one ofits two tidal grids and allowed use ofthe other grid exclusively for mechanical checks and repairs but not for cleaning. As the Whangarei Cruising Club's grids were unavailable for sampling, NIW A suggested choosing the Westhaven Marina's (Auckland) tidal grids as a replacement, which was endorsedbyMFish (letterdated 27 May 2003). Between 10 June and 16 July 2003, NIWA personnel were in regular (daily orbi-daily) contact with the Tauranga and Westhaven marinas to arrange sampling dates for vessel cleaning on tidal grids. Between June and August, two separate trips (each with a duration of two days) were undertaken to the Tauranga Marina, and five trips to the Westhaven Marina. Fifteen vessels were inspectedthatusedthe availabletidal grids. All ofthese boats were clean offouling and removed from the water for either mechanical repairs (e.g. change of sacrificial anodes or checking ofpropeller shaft) or removal of slime. Communication with the marina operators suggests that tidal grids are usually not used for de-fouling because of convenient and inexpensive haul-out facilities nearby. Consequently, no de-fouling of vessels on tidal grids was sampled in this study (communicated to Mfish in theJuly 2003 Progress Report). Samplingofvessels removedfromtheseafor cleaning Between May 16 and August 28 2003 surveys were done of the viability of organisms removed from vessel hulls in haul-out and dry-dock operations in Lyttelton (LytteltonDrydock), Auckland (Orams Marine Maintenance, Westpark Marina), and Tauranga (Tauranga Marina Society). A total of 19 vessels were sampled. Sampling of fouling organisms and liquid effluent was done at all stages of the hull cleaning and waste treatment process (Fig. 1.1). Macrofouling was sampled before, and immediately following its removal from vessel hulls. Liquid fouling waste was examined before it entered settlementtanks and filters, and following treatmentpriorto discharge intothe sea. Definition ofa viableorganism For a fouling organism removed from a boat hull to establish a self-sustaining population in New Zealand waters, it must: 1. survive the cleaningprocess andbereturned to the sea, and 2. be able to grow and produce offspring which are themselves capable of surviving and reproducing in New Zealand conditions. In this project we defined a viable organism (adult or propagule) as being one that is "potentially capable of living and developing normally in the marine environment". This simply means that the plant or animal has survived the cleaning process (Stage 1) and is in a condition that wouldpotentially allow it to grow and produce offspring. The likelihood of successful establishment ofpopulations in New Zealand waters involves interactions between the organism, its local environment and native enemies

-7 -

### (competitors, predators and parasites) and cannot be addressed without complex field experimentation and testing. Even our simple definition of viability has some difficulties, as many marine species (particularly macroalgae and clonal invertebrates) are able to regenerate from very small fragments. The likely survival ofthese fragments can onlybe determined definitivelyby cUlturing them in the laboratory. In 

### this study, we took a pragmatic approach that used field assessments ofphysiological condition and best available knowledge as surrogates for more complex tests ofviability. Samplingofhull-fouling assemblages beforeandafterremovalfrom hulls To obtain an estimate ofthe proportion oforganisms that survive the de-fouling process and/or the subsequent treatment methods, the amount offouling on a hull (expressed as wet weight) was determined before cleaning commenced. For each vessel, the "total wetted surface area (TWSA)" was determinedusing formulae developedby the antifouling paintindustry (Akzo Nobel, pers. comm. 2003). Separate formulae were used for different classes ofvessel: Regular yachts: TWSA= 

### 2 x Length x Draft Superyachts and trawlers: TWSA= 

### (2 x Length x Draft) 

### +(beam x draft) Large ships (> 

### 100m length): TWSA= 

### (Length between perpendiculars x (Beam

### +(2 x light load draft))) x 0.72 Calculation ofTWSA for each vessel used measurements provided from either the vessel owners or from technical plans provided by the operators of the cleaning facilities. An 

### estimate of the proportion of the TWSA that**~as** 

### covered by fouling organisms was obtained by taking digital images (image size 20 x 20 cm; Olympus C4400 Zoom) of random areas around each hull (including main hull area, rudder and keel), and superimposing 60 random dots to calculate the average fouling cover per image. Ten randomly placed replicate images were taken for boats of 30 m length or less, while 18 images were taken oflargerships (Lyttelton dry-dock). Because ofaccess restrictions, only 10 images could be taken ofthe hull ofthe 

### Hebe (76.4 m). The total biomass (weight) qf 

### fouling organisms on each hull was then determined by measuring the average fouling weight in three 400 cm2 

### areas around the hull, and extrapolating the derived value to the estimated total hull area covered by fouling organisms. Fouling assemblages on vessel hulls are usually not distributed randomly (Coutts 1999; James and Hayden 2000). However, we did not use a stratified sampling approach to determine fouling cover in this study as this would have necessitated individual area calculations for the various strata, which was beyond the scope of this project. Instead, we used a randomised approach to obtain a broad estimate of fouling intensity on vessels cleaned in New Zealand maintenance facilities. After a vessel's hull had been cleaned of fouling organisms by water-blasting and/or scraping, samples of the removed biota were collected from the surrounding area by filling four replicate l-L containers with fouling material collected haphazardly from



### - 8-

### the ground below and around the vessel. For each vessel, the time between its removal from the water, and the time between completion of the cleaning process and the collection of samples were recorded. Fouling cover and biomass varied among the vessels examined in this study

.. While in some cases enough fouling material was available to fill four l-Ljars, only onejarcouldbe filled following the cleaning ofother boats. Following collection, each container was emptied into a sorting dish (45cm L x 28cmW x 12cm H), and the types of organisms or fragments, their size and their degree of structural damage and dryness (desiccation) were recorded. Organisms and fragments were separated by phylum or major taxonomic group (e.g. barnacles, bivalves, colonial ascidians) into additional sorting dishes. These dishes were then flooded with clean seawater and left undisturbed for 20-30 minutes to allow the organisms to recover. The organisms and fragments in each sorting dish were then examined under magnification using either a handheld magnifying glass (5 x magnification) or aWildM-7A dissecting miscroscope (31 x magnification) for signs ofactive feeding and movement. Decisions as to whether an organism orfragment was viable were based on criteria developed with guidance from NlWA taxonomists (see Appendix Table Al for detail). This sequence of activities was continued until all four l-Lcontainers hadbeen emptied and examined. Sampling ofliquid effiuentprior to dischargeinto the 

### sea In 

### the haul-out facilities four lO-L samples ofliquid effluent were taken at each offour separate stages in the treatment process. The number of these stages sampled varied according to the set-up ofthe cleaning facility. Samples ofliquideffluent were collected (1) 

### from the waterblast runoffbefore it entered the settlement tanks (Lyttelton, Orams and Westpark: two vessels per facility; Tauranga: three vessels), (2) from the first ·chamber of the settlement tanks (all four facilities), (3) from the final chamber of the settlement tank prior to passing through a sandfilter (Tauranga), or (4) from the discharge pipe following settlement and filtration (sandfilter) (Orams). In the Tauranga Marina, sampling at (4) was attempted on various occasions but could not be achieved as, at the time of our visits, the settlement tanks were not sufficiently full to cause overflow oftankcontents into the sand trap following cleaning ofvessels. All samples of effluent were filtered through a 60 J.UIl 

### mesh to retain the biological material within them. A combination of visual observations and vital staining analysis was performed on three replicate small samples (2 ml) 

### from each lO-L sample to determine the viability of small organisms or propagules. The samples were added to fresh seawater and left undisturbed for 20-30 minutes before examination under the microscope for movement and damage (magnification ranged from x40 to x100 as appropriate). The material was then filtered again and one drop offiltrate was added to a cover slide together with one drop of the vital stain Janus Green B (made up from distilled water at 1: 10,000). The solution was then examined under a compound micoscope within 36 hours. Janus Green stains mitochondria in eukaryotic tissue samples (Clark 1973). Like all other available stains, Janus Green does not provide information on mitochondrial or cellular activity. 

### However, as eukayotic cells degenerate soon after they die the colour and intensity of the stain can provide an indication ofwhether the contents ofa sample are in theiroriginal state (staining visible within the superstructure (e.g. exoskeleton)) or whether mortality has occurred a considerable time ago (staining dispersed throughout the sample due to tissue



### -9-degeneration). In this study, the combined use of visual observations (movement) and vital stains is useful for rapid assessment ofviability of small organisms orpropagules in liquid samples. The remaining filtrate from each lO-L sample was made up to 50 rnI of 5% formaldehyde/seawater and transported to the laboratory for further analysis. Two subsamples (2 ml each) were taken from each 50-ml filtrate sample and organisms, propagules and their fragments presented within them were identified and enumerated using a Leitz Fluovert FS microscope (lOO x magnification). The abundance of all organisms and propagules was estimated using direct counts, with the exception of filamentous algae, for which a rank scale of abundance was used (0
- absent; 1 - very low abundance; 2 - low abundance; 3 - moderate abundance; 4 - high abundance; 5 - very high abundance). 

### Samplingofvessels cleanedin the water An assessment ofthe viability offouling organisms removed from vessel hulls during inwater cleaning operations was made in Gulf Harbour Marina and Orams Marine Maintenance facility. Three vessels were sampled in each. Before the cleaning, the amount of fouling on each vessel hull was determined using the techniques described above. NIW A divers then mimicked in-water cleaning by removed fouling organisms from randomly-chosen locations on the hull ofeach vessel using the same method (apaint scraper) used by many hull cleaning facilities and private individuals. Fouling organisms removed from hulls were collected using catch bags made from fine nylon· mesh (0.2 mm). The quantity of fouling organisms collected was standardised to the same volume used for vessels cleaned in haul-out facilities by transferring the contents ofthe mesh bags into four (or fewer, depending on the material available) replicate l-L containers. Immediately after collection, all material was placed in sorting trays filled with clean seawater, and the viability of organisms was assessed using the procedures described above (Section 'Sampling ofhull-fouling assemblages before and afterremoval from hulls'). Our approach did not include an assessment ofpropagule (eggs & larvae) release from adult organisms during in-water hull cleaning: as it was not possible to distinguish these from other sources of propagules in the water column or to tell if material removed from the hull had recently released gametes. 

### 10. Results Samplingofsolidfouling material The vessels cleaned during the study included private yachts, harbour tugs, tankers and fishing trawlers of 10.0

- 104.5 m in length (Table 1.2). Fouling cover on the hulls ranged from 2.8 ± 1.2 % (mean ± standard error) to 46.9 ± 7.6 % of the submerged surfaces, and from 0.05 ± 0.006 kg to 614 ± 285 kg in wetweight (Table 1.2; Plate 1.1). The average wetted surface area of vessel hulls cleaned in the dry-dock (897.3 ±456.2 m2) was greater than of those cleaned in haul-out facilities (37.2 ± 4.1 m2) and, as a consequence, the cleaning process generally took much longer (dry-dock: 69 ± 54h; haul-outfacilities: 39 ± 8 min; t-test, t11

# =2.59, 

### P

# =0.024). All of the vessels sampled were cleanedby waterblasting (freshwater, 3,000

- 8,000psi).

- lO-A total of 10,317 organisms or fragments from,solid fouling material were examined during the study. These included species of barnacles, bivalves, bryozoans, ascidians, hydroids, polychaetes, sponges, algae, motile crustaceans and molluscs, flatworms, nemertean worms and anemones (Table 1:3; Appendix Table A2). The numerically most abundant taxa were tubiculous polychaetes (serpulids, sabellids and spirorbids), erect and encrusting bryozoans, and barnacles (acorn barnacles: 99 %; goose barnacles: 1 %) (Table 1.3). Degree of desiccation andtypes of damage to organisms examined Because of the relatively short period between the removal of vessels from the water and the onset of cleaning in haul-out facilities'(25 

### ± 11 min), most fouling organisms were still wet when fouling cover was examined. In the dry-dock, however, the time between removal from water and cleaning was significantly longer (13 h 42min ± 2 h 19 min; Hest, t11 

## =11.27, 

### P 

### <0.001) and most soft-bodied organisms (especially ascidians, sponges and hydroids) had considerably dried out by the time water-blasting commenced. When the solid waste samples were collected all material from haul-out and dry-docking facilities was re-hydrated and moist or wetfrom the freshwaterused in the cleaningprocess. The type and severity ofphysical damage to organisms removed from the hulls varied among vessels and operations. In haul-out and dry-dock operations the pressure associated with the water blast and trampling by cleaning staff had fragmented and 'crushed a large proportion of soft-bodied (haul-out operations, 59.7 

### ± 10.9 %; dry-dock operations, 40.5 ± 21 %) and hard-bodied organisms (77.0± 6.9 % and 33.7 ± 3.6 %) '(Fig. 1.2 a; Plate 1.2). In-water removal of organisms from boat hulls with a paint scraper caused similar damage to fragile or brittle hard-bodied organisms such as tubeworms and,barnacles (66.4 ± 10.6 % damaged), butconsiderably less to soft-bodied taxa such as sponges, ascidians, flatworms and nudibranchs (10.0 ± 4.4 % damaged; Fig. 1.2 a). Following prolonged exposure to air (dry-dock) or high-pressure blasting with freshwater (dry-dock and haul-out operations), patterns ofmortality varied among operations. Survival ofunprotected soft-bodies organisms tended to belowerin haul-out and dry-dock operations (20.5 ± 7.2 % and 31.9 ± 39.1 %, respectively) than following in-water cleaning (88.35 

### ± 5.9 %). Rates of survival of hard-bodied organisms were generally low in all three facilities and ranged from 16.5 % (haul-out operations) to 47.6 % (dry-dock) (Fig. 1.2b). Viability of organisms The proportion of organisms that remained viable following removal from vessel hulls varied considerably amongbroad taxonomic groups and cleaning operations. 

### In all three types of operations, more than 18 % of the total number of organisms and fragments examined were viable, with no apparent differences among operation type (Fig. 1.3 a). Tubiculous polychaetes comprised 71.2 % of all organisms investigated in in-water cleaning operations, butonly 0.8 % and 38.7 % ofthose examinedin dry-dock and haulout operations, respectively. When they were excluded from the data, the mean proportion of organisms that was alive and viable following in-water hull cleaning increased to 72.3 ± 8.6 % (Fig. 1.3 b).

- 11

-Much greater average proportions of bivalves (82 ± 18.1 %; N=45 specimens examined), ascidians (75.1 ± 7.8 %; N=359), bryozoans (57.6 ± 14.4 %; N=413), errant polychaetes (100 %; N=37) and sponges (88.9 ± 10.2 %; N=16) remained viable after in-water hull cleaning than after cleaning in dry-dock or haul-out operations (Fig. 1.3). In addition, very large proportions (93-100%) of motile molluscs (N=10, not encountered in other operations), motile crustaceans (N=39), nemerteans and flatworms (N=122, not encountered in other operations) and anemones (N=34) were viable following in-water removal. In contrast, none of the bryozoans (N=28), ascidians (N=21), hydroids (N=9), tubiculous polychaetes (N=4) and sponges (N=10) examined in the dry-dock facilities were viable following their removal from vessel hulls (Fig. 1.3). There was considerable variability in the rates of survival of different organisms associated with differing amounts offouling on individual vessels and variation in the cleaning process. For example, few tubeworms living on the hull surfaces survived the cleaning process in any of the operations sampled. Of the more than 5000 serpulids, sabellids and spirorbids that were examined, <12 % remained viable after cleaning (Fig. 1.3 h). The most common forms of damage observed in this group were fragmentation ofthe tube and/or the worm inside it, and/or loss ofthe tentacular crown and feeding structure. 

### In nearly all cases, the only living and viable individuals were growing epibiotically on other organisms such as barnacles and bivalves. Similarly, most barnacles growing directly on hull surfaces were also killed by cleaning, as their shell plates were detached from the basal plate and the animal inside from its test. However, in some cases - particularly the Hebe and Godley sampled in the Lyttelton dry-dock

- barnacles also occurred as epibionts on bivalves or formed large clumps by growing on top of one another. When these vessels were cleaned, between 61 % and 78 % of the barnacles examined were alive, compared with 0.2

- 28 % survival per vessel in other operations (Fig. 1.3 c). The viability of bivalves varied among operation types and vessels (Fig. 1.3 d). During the cleaning of the Alexander Slobodchikov in Lyttelton, a large quantity ofbivalves was removed from the vessel's sea chests, 61 %of which remained viable (Plate 1.3). Sea chests are recesses for ballast water intake of large ships (Dodgshun and Coutts 2002), whose interior is protected from significant drag during movement of the vessel. These recesses allow bivalves to persist in large clumps and also shield the organisms from the main force of water blasting during cleaning. The errant polychaetes and two motile crustaceans (all viable) that were collectedfollowing cleaning ofthis ship were encountered inside the clump of mussels removed from the sea chests. Most motile crustaceans (amphipods and isopods) examined in haul-out and in-water cleaning operations were viable (Fig. 1.3). They were generally encountered in protected micro-habitats such as empty barnacle tests orthe internal cavities ofsponges or solitary ascidians. Macroalgae We were not able to reliably determine mortality or viability in marine macroalgae following their removal from vessel hulls. 

### In total, 86 samples ofalgae were examined, all ofwhich were Enteromorpha sp. These algae grow as a double layer ofcells, each of which, under certain conditions, could fragment from the main body ofthe alga and act as a colonising propagule (Adams 1994; Nelson, pers. comm. 2003). Sixty-seven percent of algae collected were damaged and fragmented to varying degrees, and often

- 12-faded due to a loss ofpigment. More detail on this group is provided below (Sampling ofliquid effluent). 

### Sampling ofliquid effiuent Abundance of organisms A total of 64 samples of liquid effluent (10 L per sample) were taken in the four facilities from different stages of treatment. Intact specimens or fragments of nematodes, crustaceans (mainly copepods), gastropods, bivalves, rotifers, ciliates, diatoms, tintinnids, filamentous algae, spores, eggs and pollen (terrestrial plants) were encountered in these samples, at total concentrations ofup to 63,113 individuals 10 L- 1 (Table 1.4). In all ofthe facilities, average concentrations (N=4 lO-L samples) ofintact animals (up to 36,650 ± 6196 10 L-1), intact propagules (up to 835 ± 328 10 L-1
, includinr, eggs, spores and larvae) and intact unicellular organisms (up to 2880 ± 1425 10 L- ) were greatest in the initial run-offfrom the water blasting (Fig. 1.4). Settlement and filtration progressively reduced the mean concentrations of organisms in the liquid effluent. In samples taken from the first chamber of the multi-chamber settlement tanks, concentrations ofintact animals, propagules and unicellular organisms were reduced by between 40% to 100 %, and the rank abundance of filamentous algae decreased by 10 to 80 % (Table 1.4, Fig. 1.4). The final treatment stage that was sampled varied among operations. In the Westpark Marina, the final samples ofeffluent were taken from the first chamber ofthe settlement

. tanks. In Tauranga, the final samples ofeffluent were taken from the last chamberofthe settlement tanks, since the tanks were not full enough for overflow to be discharged. In Lyttelton the effluent sampled was the unfiltered discharge that was piped from the settlement tanks into the sea, and at Orams Marine the effluent from the tanks passed through a sand filter before being sampled. In each of the facilities sampled, concentrations of intact animals, propagules and unicellular organisms in the first chamber of the settlement tanks were between 39.7 % and 99.9 % lower than those encountered in the cleaning run-off, and varied from 1.7

- 98.5 individuals 10 L-1 (Table 1.4; Fig. 1.4 a - d). In the Tauranga Marina, the number of intact animals, propagules and unicellular organisms had been further reduced during their passing from the first to the final chamber of the settlement tanks, where their final concentrations were - 1 % of those observed in the first chamber (animals and unicellular organisms) or nil (propagules). Orams Marine was the only facility where liquid waste was sampled following its passing through a settlement tank and a sandfilter. No animal matter (dead orviable) was encountered in the final discharge. In each facility, the abundance of filamentous algae at the final stage of sampling had decreased by 10

- 85 % compared to their concentrations in the cleaning run-off (Fig. 1.4 e). However, it was not possible to ascertain whether the filamentous algae encountered in the settlement tanks were marine or freshwater species. Rainwater falling onto the cleaning area during the study washed pollen grains into the settlement tanks, and may have also added freshwater algae.

- 13

-Viability of organisms 

### Vital staining for mitochondria (Janus Green) returned positive results within liquid samples collected from the water-blast run-off in all facilities (Table 1.5). Wherever staining was observed, it 

### was clearly contained within the organisms, such as the exoskeleton ofcrustaceans, the bodies ofnemertean worms or the cells offilamentous algae. In 

### all run-offsamples analysed, visible movement (only observed in nemerteans) occurred only in those from three vessels: the Alexander Slobodchikov, 

### cleaned in the Lyttelton dry-dock, and the Chancellor 

### and Lady Crossley, 

### cleaned at Drams Marine in Auckland. No movement of organisms was observed at any other stage of treatment. Positive mitochondrial stains were also obtained in samples from in the first settlement tank chamber ofthe Lyttelton dry-dock and the TaurangaMarina (Table 1.5). However, only in filamentous algae was the stain clearlyretained within intactcell walls. Formost other biota the staining was observed within fragments (e.g. body parts) oforganisms. Complete exoskeletons of crustaceans and bryozoans (and other taxa) were in most cases found to be empty and did not stain properly. No mitochondrial staining was observed in samples taken from the final settlement tank chamber ordischarge liquid of any ofthe facilities visited. 11. Discussion The viability of organisms and efficiency ofeffluent control methods was investigated at a variety of treatment stages: (1) 

### Following physical removal of fouling organisms from vessel hulls (solid and liquid fouling waste arising during cleaning in dry-dock, haul-out and in-water cleaning operations), (2) following collection ofliquid effluent in settlement tanks, and (3) following physical screening and filtration of settlement tank discharge (Fig. 1.1). Our results show that each stage in the treatment process kills or removes different types oforganisms, resulting in afinal discharge that contains little or no viable biological material. The proportion and types of organisms killed, however, varied among facilities and depended on the range of treatment options that was incorporated. Stage 1: removaloffouling from vessel hulls (a) Solidfouling waste Dry-dockandhaul-outoperations 

### Physical removal of fouling organisms from hulls in operations that remove vessels from the sea for cleaning damaged or killed 40

- 60 % 

### of soft-bodied organisms, and 36 -77 % 

### ofhard-bodied organisms examined, depending on operation type. Mortality was caused by a combination of exposure to air for extended periods, high-pressure (3,000

- 8,000 psi) blasting with freshwater and trampling by cleaning staff. Nevertheless, significant proportions (> 

### 5 % 

### of samples examined) of barnacles, bivalves, ascidians, bryozoans, tubiculous polychaetes, errant polychaetes, sponges and motile crustaceans removed from vessel hulls in dry-dock and haul-out operations were still viable and potentially capable ofliving and reproducing iftheyhad been returned to the sea at this stage. The overall viability was 43 % 

### and 16 % 

### ofall organisms removed in dry-dock and haul-out facilities, respectively. Our results suggest that the prolonged exposure to air that precedes vessel cleaning in dry-docks (between 10 to 18 hours in



### - 14-

### this study) is sufficient to kill a variety ofsoft-bodied taxa including ascidians, sponges and some bryozoans (M. Kelly-Shanks, pers. comm. 2003). In both dry-dock and haulout operations, cleaning by high-pressure water blast caused further damage and mortality of all taxonomic groups observed growing on the exterior of the vessels. However, rates ofsurvival appear to be greater for organisms living in the seachests or otherrecesses oflarger vessels. Because sea chests are built into the hulls ofships (often extending 2 m into the body of the vessels) and are covered by steel grids, organisms living inside them are more protected from desiccation stress than those attached to exterior hull surfaces (Dodgshun and Coutts 2002). Diverse and "thick" fouling assemblages are commonly observed in sea chests and, in New Zealand and Australia, some have been found to contain non-indigenous species (Dodgshun and Coutts 2002; Coutts etal. 2003; Dodgshun and Coutts 2003). The application ofhigh-pressure water blast to large clumps of mussels

- such as those observed in the sea chests of the AlexanderSlobodchikov

- is likely to damage and kill organisms living on the periphery of these clumps, but many of the cryptic organisms living in the centre of the clumps were unaffected. We expect that rates of survival will also be relatively high in solid material removed from the exterior ofvery heavily fouled vessels, since some degree of protection is provided by interstices in the large volumes of material removed. Dense aggregations of mussels often contain a large number of epibiotic and motile species (Lohse 1993), and many ofthese

- such as the crabs, shrimps, isopods, amphipods and errant polychaetes associated with clumps of Perna canaliculus in the Alexander Slobodchikov's seachests

- are able to survive physical removal from hulls. All ofthe dry-dock and haul-out operations visited in this study collect and contain solid waste removed from the vessels and dispose ofit as landfill. Despite the relatively high rates of survival of organisms following cleaning, therefore, the risk to marine biosecurity is comparatively small, since none ofthe solid waste is returned to the sea. However, of the 37 hull-cleaning operations reviewed in MFish Research Project ZBS2000-03 (McClary and Nelligan 2001) 13 operations discharged solids back into the sea without further treatment. These operations clean mainly domestic vessels (30- 2,200 per annum) and, in total, service about 21 overseas vessels per annum (McClary & 

### Nelligan 2001). In these operations, there is a more than minor chance that any nonindigenous species cleaned from the vessels that are returned to the sea as part of the solidwaste will survive. Wefound that a significantproportion ofthefouling organisms removed from vessels hulls in dry-dock and haul-out operations remain in a viable state. In-waterhullcleaning We also assessed survival and viability offouling organisms removed from vessels by in-water cleaning using a paint scraper. More sophisticated technology is available, including manned underwater vehicles (e.g. "mini-pamper" by UMC International) or rotating brushes operated from the surface (e.g. JIMIK International's "Hull Super Scrub"; see Jones (2000) and Objective 2 ofthis report). However, according to marina operators (Westhaven and GulfHarbour Marina Management, pers. comm.) and recent research (Floed unpubl. data 2002-2003) paint scrapers or stiff brushes are most commonly used to remove fouling from small vessels (e.g. yachts) in New Zealand and otherlocations. During in-water cieaning, fouling assemblages are not subject to prolonged exposure to air, to high-pressure waterblasting, to immersion in freshwater orto trampling. Rates of

- 15

-

### damage and mortality of organisms removed from the vessels in situ 

### were, therefore, much lower than of those of organisms removed by shore-based cleaning facilities. A significant proportion (> 

### 5 %) 

### of the individuals in all of the taxa examined remained viable after in-water cleaning. Scraping caused consistent physical damage (and mortality) only in brittle and calcareous organisms, especially barnacles (- 32 % 

### of individuals remaining viable) and tubiculous polychaetes (8 

### % ofindividuals). With the exception oftubeworms (the most abundant, butmost fragile group oforganisms in this study) rates of survival were between 29 % 

### and 56 % 

### higher for organisms removed during in-water cleaning than for dry-dock and haul-out operations, respectively. In 

### total, around 72% of the organisms removed during in-water cleaning remained viable in the solid waste. In-water hull cleaning by commercial operators is available in a range offacilities New Zealand wide. Some commercial operators contain fouling waste using vacuum systems and/or filtration (McClary and Nelligan 2001). However, when this material is not contained (as may occur when private yacht owners clean their boats on snorkel or SCUBA), organisms removed from the hulls sink onto the sea floor close to where the vessels are moored. During the process of scraping, damaged organisms (e.g. tubeworms) may release gametes or brooded larvae (Bureau of Rural Sciences 1999; G. Read, pers. comm. 2003; see below). Ports and marinas usually contain a large abundance of hard substrata available for colonisation

- e.g. breakwalls, pontoons and pilings

- and propagules originating from fouling waste may be able to establish on these surfaces. Because of the large proportion of these organisms that remain viable after the cleaning process;in water cleaning is likely to pose a more than minor risk to marine biosecurity ifmaterial removed from hulls is not contained and disposed ofon land. (b) Waterblastrunoffduringcleaning ofvessel The high-pressure water blast used to clean hulls in shore-based cleaning operations removed fouling assemblages and often the top layer ofantifouling paint. In 

### most cases

.examined, liquid run-off from the water-blast was coloured by the antifouling paint on the hull, and contained a diverse assemblage of intact animals, propagules and unicellular organisms or fragments of organisms (Plate 1.4). Our data show that the propagules and brooded larvae of organisms removed during the water blasting were contained in the liquid effluent at concentrations ofup to 850 per 10 L. 

### Four ofthe 36 samples examined contained actively moving animals (all nemertean worms), and all samples stained positive for mitochondria. During the cleaning of the Alexander Slobodchikov 

### in the Lyttelton dry-dock, two live crabs with carapace widths of

- 15 mm' were encountered in the water blast run-off. The liquid samples were taken approximately 5 - 15 m from where the vessels were being cleaned and, at that time, the organisms collected had been exposed to freshwater (and osmotic stress) for only 1 - 2 minutes. Our results and consultation with NIWA specialists indicate that most ofthe animals observed in the cleaning run-off were likely to be dead (M. Kelly-Shanks, G. Read and W. Nelson, pers. comm. 2003), as aresult ofphysical damage and exposure to freshwater and toxic antifoulant residues. However, a number of estuarine species are extremely tolerant to low salinities. One example is the serpulid worm Ficopomatus enigmaticus 

### (formerly Mercierella enigmatica) 

### that is non-indigenous to New Zealand and is known for its nuisance growths on submerged artificial structures (Read and Gordon 1991). F. enigmaticus 

### can tolerate salinities of

### < 1ppt and cleaning run-offthat

- 16-

### reaches the marine environment withoutprior filtration or screening may contain viable propagules ofthis and othereuryhaline species (Table 1.6; Straughan 1972). Thirteen of the cleaning facilities (not including tidal grids) sampled by McClary and Nelligan (2001) did not collect liquid waste in settling tanks. Our observations suggest that facilities that discharge liquid effluent directly into the marine environment present a more than minor risk of discharging viable organisms or propagules into the surrounding waters. Stage2: Collection ofliquidfouling wastein settlementtanks In 

### each facility, samples of liquid waste were taken from the first chamber of the settlement tanks immediately following the cleaning of a vessel. In 

### all facilities, the concentrations of animals, propagules, unicellular organisms and algae were considerably (10

- 100 %) 

### lower than in the liquid run-offcaptured from water blasting of vessel hulls. The "age" of the tank contents varied at the time of sampling. In 

### the Westpark Marina the tanks had been emptied two weeks earlier. At Orams Marine, the contents were at least one month old. At the Lyttelton dry-dock the liquid had been in the tanks for three months, and in the Tauranga Marina effluent had been in the tanks for six months. As a result, the tanks contained liquid waste that had originated from a varying number ofvessels. This variation was reflected in the number oforganisms and propagules encountered in the tank contents. The difference in relative abundance of organisms in the water blast run-off 'and tank contents was generally greatest (77-



### 100 %) 

### in facilities whose tanks had been cleaned within the last month and smallest (39

- 87 %) 

### in facilities where tanks had been cleaned three to six months ago. This could reflect the greater overall amount of fouling waste that has accumulated in the tanks, from a greater number of vessels, over the longer retention period. However, there are also other explanations. For example, in the Tauranga Marina, which had the longest retention time of all the tanks that were sampled, filamentous algae occurred in greater abundance within the tanks than in the water-blast run-off. Other predominantly freshwater taxa, such as rotifers, were more common or occurred exclusively in tanks that had not been cleaned for extended periods. These data suggest active growth of freshwater organisms within the settlement tanks. In 

### all of the tanks examined, terrestrial plant seeds and pollen grains were encountered, and it is likely that wind and rain also transport filamentous freshwater algae into them. A large proportion of the organisms detected in effluent discharged from the settlement tanks, therefore, is likely to consist offreshwater organisms thatpose no risk to marinebiosecurity. The effectiveness of multi-chamber settlement tanks in removing biological material from liquid waste in the hull-cleaning facilities is illustrated by our samples taken from the final chamber of the Tauranga Marina settlement tank, and the unfiltered tank discharge of the Lyttelton dry-dock. In 

### both facilities, nearly all (99

- 100 %) 

### intact animals, larvae and unicellular organisms had been removed from the liquid stage ofthe tank contents. The maximumconcentration ofintactorganisms andpropagules recorded at this stage was 98 lO L- 1•

### We believe that most ofthese were likely to be dead: firstly because no active movement oforganisms was observed in any samples examined from this stage ofthe treatment process, and secondly, because ofthe prolonged exposure of organisms to freshwater. The volume of the settlement tanks examined varied among facilities

- approximately 25 m3 

### in Lyttelton and at Orams Marine, and 3.5 m3 

### in the WestparkMarina. Given an average discharge of20L min-l 

### per waterblaster (McClary

- 17

-& Nelligan 2001; R. Mathieson pers. comm. 2003) and an average cleaning duration of 39 minutes (data from this study), the settlement tanks in haul-out facilities would be full following the cleaning ofbetween five (Westpark) and 32 vessels (Orams). In the Lyttelton dry-dock, where on average three water blasters operate at one time (average effective blasting time is approximately four hours), the tanks would fill up following the cleaning ofapproximately two vessels. Depending on season and facility, the liquid waste arising from hull cleaning may be able to fill from empty the settlement tanks examined in this study within 

### <2 d (summer: up to 20 vessels cleaned per day) and approximately 15 days (winter: approximately two boats cleaned per day; pers. comm. with operators ofthe various facilities). Many species ofmarine invertebrates and plants are unlikely to survive such prolonged exposure to freshwater (Andrews 1973; Coates and Byron 1991; Anil 

### et al. 1995). This is also the case for a selection of well-known NIS that occur around New Zealand. For example, even short exposure to freshwater has detrimental effects on larvae and small colonies of the bryozoan 

### Bugula neritina, and 100 % mortality will occur in the serpulid

### Hydroides elegans following exposure to salinities of5 ppt. for 9.5 hours. Also 

### Sabella spallanzanii, a tubiculous polychaete that is currently not established in NZ but has invaded parts of Australia and that could possibly be transported on the hulls of ships and boats will not survive exposure to freshwater for more than 2-12 hours (Table 1.6; Mak and Huang 1982). However, the introduced euryhaline tubeworm 

### F. enigmaticus and the Pacific oyster 

### Crassostrea gigas are able to survive exposure to very low salinities for extendedperiods

- 11 weeks in the case of

### F. enigmaticus (Table 1.6). Our results suggest that, to keep risk to biosecurity at a minimum, it is important to ensure a 'safe' residency period of settlement tank contents (liquids) in facilities where liquid waste is treated in multi-chambered settlement tanks but not subsequently filtered. Because ofthe variation in the salinity tolerance between marine sessile species (Table 1.6) it is not possible to recommend a 'silver bullet' residency time. However, the literature available for a range of animal species suggests that exposure to freshwater for approximately three days is sufficient to cause high ortotal mortality (but see Apte 

### et al. 2000). Longer periods may be required for intertidal animal and plant species, which are often adapted to freshwater exposure in the form ofrain and runoff (W. Nelson, pers. comm. 2003).

. Stage3: Physical screeningandfiltration ofsettlementtankdischarge Only one facility used in the study (Orams Marine Maintenance) filtered the effluent from the settlement tanks prior to its discharge into the sea. All four replicate lO-L samples of the filtered discharge were entirely free of marine animals or their larvae, eggs, spores or unicellular organisms. Filamentous algae were present in very low abundance and, as discussed above, are likely to have been freshwater species that reached the tanks through rainwaterrun-off. Conclusions There are differences in the degree of biosecurity risk posed by waste material discharged at different stages ofthe treatment process at hull cleaning operations within NewZealand. The results ofObjective 1results suggestthat:

- 18

-(1) 

### In-water hull cleaning without collection offouling wasteposes the highest risk to marine biosecurity. This excludes operations that collect and contain fouling organisms following their removal from vessel hull, as such operations were not includedin this study. (2) Operations that clean vessels in shore-basedfacilities and discharge solid and liquidfouling waste into the sea without any treatmentpose a more than minor risk to marine biosecurity, as both solid and liquid phases are likely to contain a large number of viable organisms and propagules. This excludes tidal grid operations, as these could not be included in this study. However, we expect viability oforganisms removed from vessels in tidal grids to be considerable, as they are not subject to water blasting with freshwater. Thirteen of the 37 facilities sampled during MFish Research Project ZBS2000103 

### discharge solid and liquid fouling waste into the sea without any treatment, and approximately 2,950 vessels are cleaned in these facilities per annum (McClary and Nelligan 2001). (3) Operations that clean vessels out ofthe water and employ settling tanks to separatefine particulatesfrom liquidwasteprior to discharge into the seapose a relatively low risk to marine biosecurity. Because the residence time ofwater in the settling tanks is usually several days, or even weeks (depending on tank size and frequency ofcleaning), only organisms that are highly tolerant to very low salinities are able to reach the sea in a viable state. Twelve of the 37 facilities sampled during MFish Research Project ZBS2000103 

### fall into this category, and approximately 7,650 vessels are cleaned in these facilities per annum (McClary and Nelligan 2001). (4) Operations that clean vessels out ofthe water and employ settling tanks and filters (e.g. sand filters) to separatefine particulatesfrom liquid waste prior to discharge into the seapose negligible risk to marine biosecurity. 

### In this study, no intact organisms or propagules were encountered in the final discharge, and all biological material in these samples had a size of80 J..Ill1 

### or less. Three ofthe 37 facilities sampled during MFish Research Project ZBS2000103 

### fall into this category, and approximately 4,600 vessels are cleaned in these facilities per annum (McClary and Nelligan 2001). Likely influences of time of year(season) on the results of this study This study did not include a comparison of the viability of organisms removed from vessel hulls during winter and summer months. However, for shore-based cleaning facilities we believe that patterns ofpost-cleaning survival and viability would not differ profoundly between seasons, as most mortalities appeared to have been caused by physical damage (blasting, freshwater exposure and trampling) rather than temperature and exposure to air. We also do not anticipate any differences in viability patterns following in-water cleaning during summer or winter, as organisms will not be exposed to air, and therefore to changes in ambient temperature, at any time.

- 19-

### However, as outlined above (section "Stage 2: Collection of liquid fouling waste in settlement tanks", paragraph 2), the residency period of water blasting effluent in settlement tanks is likely to vary between seasons because far more vessels are cleaned per day during summer months than during winter (pers. comm. with all facility operators ofthis study). It 

### is likely, therefore, that organisms and propagules contained within the cleaning effluent are subject to freshwater exposure (settlement tanks) for shorter periods during summer than during winter (this study). In 

### addition, rainfall is likely to vary between seasons. Rainwater falling onto the cleaning area for vessels will lead to faster filling of the settlement tanks. The influence of 'seasonality' (number of boats cleaned and amount of rainfall) on risk to biosecurity is likely to be greater for facilities that do not filter settlement tank contents prior to discharge into the marine environment than for facilities that do have filters in place. We recommend that a repetition of settlement tank sampling be carried out during summer months when far more boats are cleaned per day and the residency period of cleaning effluent in settlement tanks is likely to be shorter. 

## OBJECTIVE2: Introduction To address this objective we reviewed existing national and international guidelines for containment and treatment ofwastes from boat yards and cleaning facilities. We also considered a wider suite of treatment options based on technologies that are used elsewhere for other industrial or marine biosecurity applications. A quantitative evaluation of existing system performance (from Objective 1) and the qualitative consideration of alternative technologies were used as a basis for making recommendations on the relative merits ofdifferent treatment options for New 

### Zealand hull-cleaning facilities. It

### is important to note that the focus ofObjective 2 is on the efficacy and practicality of the various treatment options for minimising risks to marine biosecurity. Most treatment systems for hull cleaning residues have been designed to minimise the discharge oforganic biomass, particulates (e.g., paintflakes), hydrocarbons and soluble, toxic anti-foulant chemicals that arise from the boat cleaning and maintenance. Both functions of treatment are relevant for the overall management of vessel hull-cleaning operations but the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) is primarily responsible for the biosecurity function, while regional councils and the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) are responsible for managing other environmental effects ofthe waste from these facilities (see below).
12. Review ofexistingregulations and guidelines for hull-cleaning 

### NewZealandregulations 

### &guidelines There are currently no national regulations or standards for hull-cleaning practices in New Zealand. At present, discharges from boat-cleaning facilities are regulated by Regional Authorities under the Resource Management Act 1991. Although most facilities are required to obtain a resource consent to discharge waste arising from



### - 20-

### cleaning activities into the marine environment, the way in which these discharges are regulated and the conditions that are placed upon them vary somewhat among regional authorities. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) provides national guidance to Regional Authorities on the issues to be covered by Regional Coastal Plans (DoC 1994), the documents thatprovide the planning framework for environmental decisionmaking for non-fisheries coastal resources. Policy 5.2.1 ofthe NZCPS deals with the disposal ofwaste from vessel cleaning facilities. It

### states that: "Provision should be made to require adequate and convenient rubbish disposal facilities inports, marinas and othersuch busy areas, and for theprovision of facilities for the collection andappropriate disposal of the residuesfrom vesselmaintenance." Some. Regional Authorities (e.g. Environment Waikato) have interpreted this to mean that discharges of most wastes from ports, marinas and boat maintenance areas should be disposed of on land at appropriate facilities (Environment Waikato 2001). Others, however, have taken this to mean that discharges to the marine environment from cleaning facilities are acceptable, provided they meet certain conditions of qUality. Below, we p'rovide a short summary of how selected Regional Authorities manage waste disposal from vessel maintenance facilities in theirRegional Coastal Plans. AucklandRegional Council

. Under section 20.5.1 of the Proposed Auckland Regional Coastal Plan (ARC 2002), discharge of any contaminant reSUlting from the cleaning, anti-fouling or painting of vessels is apermittedactivity subjectto thefollowing conditions:

a the discharge or escape of contaminant materials or debris onto the foreshore, seabed or into the water shall be collected as far as practicable and removed from the coastal marine area; and b any discharge will not, after reasonable mixing, give rise to any or all of the following effects: the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums orfoams, orfloatable or suspended materials; or ii any conspicuous change in the colour orvisual clarity of water in the coastal marine area; or iii any emission of objectionable odour; or iv any significant adverse effects on aquatic life, and c no discharge of contaminants from this activity shall occur into Coastal Protection Areas 1, other than those in Rule 20.5.108, and Tangata Whenua Management Areas. (NB: the installation of collection devices such as ground covers, netting or other devices to ensure the collection of any contaminant or debris from the operation may be necessary to comply with this rule.) In 

### addition, under Section 20.6.1 of the plan, the Auckland Regional Council has undertaken to:
a develop in consultation with the boating community and boating industry representatives, a comprehensive and practical approach to dealing with sewage and other contaminant discharges from commercial and recreational vessels to the coastal marine area once Government Regulations have been introduced to control the discharge of contaminants from vessels; and b encourage practices involving boat maintenance which prevent significant quantities of toxic or otherwise harmful substances from entering the coastal marine area; and



### - 21

-c encourage practices which will prevent vessels from discharging significant quantities of contaminated bilge water or other contaminants to the coastal marine area; and d in conjunction with territorial authorities, promote or otherwise ensure that adequate provision is made in port developments, at slipways and hardstand or haulout areas for the collection, treatment and appropriate disposal of vessel maintenance and cleaning residues, sewage and other contaminants from vessels, and in marinas sewage and other contaminants from recreational vessels; and e in conjunction with local network operators, promote a comprehensive and practical approach for dealing with the discharge of stormwater, wastewater and other contaminants from the existing, and anyfuture upgraded, public network system. 

### Environment Waikato Discharges from Ports, Marinas and Boat Maintenance Areas are managed as a 

### discretionary activity under Section 16.3.7 of the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan. Section 16.3.7 specifies that: Any discharge resulting from activities occurring on the hard stand areas of ports, marinas or boat maintenance areas, is a discretionary activity provided it complies with the standards and terms stated in this Rule. Standards and Terms I. The discharge shall not contain any solid wastes or hazardous substances. 11. The discharge shall not contain any substance which will cause the production of conspicuous oil, or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable suspended materials outside a 5 metre radius of the point of discharge. Ill. Boat maintenance residues shall be collected and disposed of in appropriate land-based facilities. Assessment Criteria In assessing any application for Discharges from Ports, Marinas and Boat Maintenance Areas, regard shall be had to:

IV. the extent to which the activity will adversely affect any conservation value within the ASCV areas as marked on maps in Appendix III and described in Appendix IV of this Plan; and V. the Decision-Making Criteria and Considerations which are set out in Appendix 11 of this Plan, and which are relevant to this activity; and VI. the extent to which the siting and location of the discharge will result in cumulative adverse effects on water quality and natural character; and VII. the extent to which the discharge will emit any objectionable odour; and VIII. the extent to which, after reasonable mixing, the discharge (either by itself, or in combination with other discharges) will give rise to any adverse effects on flora orfauna. Explanation. "ACSVareas"are Areas ofsignificantConservation Value identifiedin the Coastal Plan Environment Waikato recently released a proposed variation to the Regional Coastal Plan for public consultation that deals with construction and operation of marinas (EnvironmentWaikato 

### 2003). Rule 

### 16.2 ofthe variation states that: "There shall be no discharge of water and/or contaminants into water from boat maintenance, ballast, boat careening, or hull cleaning within the marina basin."



### - 22-

### Wellington Regional Council TheWellington Regional Coastal Plan encourages boat-servicing facilities to dispose of waste through land-based municipal treatmentfacilities. Relevant sections include: 10.2.6 To require all new marinas and/or boat servicing sites to contain facilities to accept sewage and other contaminants from vessels for disposal through municipal (or other approved) treatment processes. 10.2.7 To encourage existing marinas and/or boat servicing sites to contain facilities to accept sewage and other contaminants from vessels for disposal through municipal (or other approved) treatment processes. Explanation. "Othercontaminants from vessels"includes offal, food wastes and vesselcleaning residues. 

### EnvironmentBay ofPlenty The Regional Coastal Plan for the BayofPlenty treats the: "discharge of any contaminant from cleaning of the exterior of the hulls of ships or offshore installations below the load line, or parts of a ship used for carrying cargo, as a discretionary activity" (Section 9.2.4(f». 

### Discharges are managed under consent to comply with water quality standards and to minimise adverse effects on the surroundingenvironment. Section 9.2.3 (k) ofthe plan: "promote(s) or otherwise require(s) that facilities are available for the appropriate shore based disposal of contaminants associated with the operation or maintenance of vessels.· In 

### addition, EnvironmentBay ofPlenty has undertaken to: 9.2.8(a) Encourage the use of non-toxic or less toxic antifoulants on vessels. 9.2.8(b) Encourage practices for boat maintenance which will prevent significant quantities of toxic or harmful substances from entering the sea. 9.2.8(c) Encourage practices which will prevent vessels from discharging significant quantities of contaminated bilge water and other contaminants intothe sea. . 9.2.8(e) In conjunction with district councils, promote or otherwise ensure adequate provision is made for the collection, treatment and appropriate disposal of vessel maintenance and cleaning residues, as well as sewage from vessel holding tanks and contaminated bilge water." 

### Summary Although few ofthe Regional Coastal Plans deal explicitly with management ofmarine pests or risks to marine biosecurity, concerns about the release of toxic contaminants from boatyards and cleaning facilities and their effects on the coastal marine environment have meant that many ofthe larger Regional Authorities are prohibiting or discouraging return ofuntreated solid and liquid wastes to the marine environment. 

### Internationalregulations andguidelines During the preparation of this report we found no evidence of any country that has implemented mandatory national standards or regulations for hull-cleaning methods to reduce the risk of discharge of marine pests. Reference to the literature (e.g., Raaymakers, ed. 2001) and personal communication with the US Navy (B. 

### Holm, US



### - 23-Navy Surface Warfare Centre, pers. comm.) suggests that some other countries have produced guidelInes (e.g., US Naval Ships' Technical Manual .- Waterborne Underwater Hull Cleaning of Navy Ships [US Navy, 2002]) and are also pursuing similar types of regulatory development, but none appear to be further advanced than Australia and New Zealand. Below, we summarise some of the regulations and guidelines that have been implemented in Australia and the USAto manage waste from boatcleaning and maintenance facilities. 

### AUSTRALIA In Australia the state environmental protection agencies administer a Code ofPractice for Antifouling and In-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance (ANZECC 2000), prepared by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Maritime Accidents and Pollution Implementation Group. The guidelines provide direction for decision-making implemented through state environmental laws that regulate discharges to coastal waters. The ANZECC guidelines encourage general maintenance of small and large vessels to be conducted at an appropriate facility, either above the tidal zone orin a dry dock, anq prohibit any in-watercleaning ofvessel hulls in Australian waters without apennitfrom the Harbour Master, local government or state environmental protection agency. All antifouling waste removed during cleaning and repainting is to be treated as controlled wastes and shouldbe collected for disposal at an appropriate facility, in accordance with local environmental andlor waste disposal authorities. Recommendations for the containment and treatment of liquid wastes from cleaning and painting facilitjes are as follows:

• Use of water during removal should be minimised by moving towards ultra high pressure water blasting, vacuum or containment blasting. • Use of high pressure blasting should be minimised and coloured run off should be avoided. • Where practical, water should be recollected for either recycling or for release to sewer (with the approval of local sewerage authorities) so thatthe water can be treated. • Release to sewer, where approved by local authorities, should be controlled to allow maximum dilution in the sewerage system. The State of Victoria, Environment Protection Agency has released a series of recommended practices, based on the ANZECC guidelines, that are intended to minimise impacts on the marine environment. These are: • All cleaning should be performed in a way to ensure no marine organisms or harmful paints fall into marina waters.
• To minimise the carriage of waterborne contaminants, washing hulls on land by mechanical scraping is preferable to pressure washers.
• High pressure wash guns produce a wastewater contaminated with marine organisms, hull paint and fragments of hull material They must be used only where proper collection, treatment and disposal facilities are provided.
• Solid waste from boat maintenance and'cleaning areas should be contained in watertight covered bins for disposal into a licensed landfill.
• Bio-degradable cleaning products are preferred. The use of cleaning compounds should be minimised and discharges into the sea prevented.

- 24-• Bilge water from distant ports or marinas should not be discharged to the local environment. It should be disposed of in the open sea or to sewer. This will reduce the risk of transferring unwanted species.

. Between 1996 and 2001, the Australian government funded a Marine WasteReception Facilities Program that established best practice facilities for the management and treatment of marine wastes at port and marinas around the country. The programme assisted with up to 50% of the cost of installing upgraded facilities in a number of demonstration sites throughout the country. A summary ofthese upgrades is provided in Appendix Table A3. Movement toward best practice in these facilities generally involved developingprocedures for the containment and treatment ofall liquid and solid wastes generated on site, with minimal discharge back into the marine environment. Most facilities sought to treat wastewater to a level sufficient for safe re-use ordisposal in municipal sewerage facilities. Theproposedupgrades involved a variety oftreatment facilities, with the most common being settlement tanks and sand traps to capture suspendedparticulates in the liquid wastewater. 

## USA In the USA, boatyards and other facilities that include outdoor boat cleaning or repair operations must obtain a federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A minimum requirement of the permit is the implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan. In addition, the EP A has implemented a "Management Measure for Marinas and Recreational Boating" that covers the containment and treatment ofwaste from boat cleaning and maintenance facilities. "Management Measures" are defined in section 6217 ofthe Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) as 

### "economically achievable measures to control the addition of pollutants to coastal waters, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application ofthe best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies,· processes, siting criteria, 'operating methods, or other alternatives". They are intended to be applied by the States to new and expanding facilities to achieve best environmental practice. "Recommended design features (for boat cleaning facilities) include the designation of discrete impervious areas (e.g., cementareas) forhullmaintenance activities; the use of roofed areas that prevent rain from contacting pollutants; and the creation of diversions and drainage of off-site runoff away from the hull maintenance area for separate treatment. Technologies capable of treating runoff that has been collected (e.g., wastewater treatment systems and holding tanks) may be used in situations where otherpractices are not appropriate orpretreatment is necessary. The primary disadvantages ofusing such systems are relatively high costs and high maintenance requirements. Some marinas are required to pretreat storm water runoff before discharge to the local sewer system. Washington State strongly recommends that marinas pretreat hull-cleaning wastewater and then discharge it to the local sewer system." (EPA 1993) EPA recommends removal of 80% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in wastewater runoff from hull maintenance areas before it is discharged, preferably to municipal wastewater treatment facilities. A summary table ofthe treatment methods contained in the EPA Management Measure for Marinas and Recrell:tional Boating is provided in Appendix TableA4. Some ofthese are discussed



### - 25-

### 13. Review of hull-cleaning methods and waste containment, treatment and disposal systems currentlyusedin New Zealand McClary 'and Nelligan (2001) reviewed hull cleaning methods and waste treatment and disposal systems currently used in New Zealand. They surveyed a range of existing operational practices at 37 hull-cleaning sites around the country and presented detailed site observations and findings in MFish ReportZBS 2000/03. A simplified summary of the various types ofsystems described in thatreport is shown inTable 2.1. In .addition to the operations described in MFish Report ZBS 2000/03, two other methods have been identified during the preparation ofthis report and are also included in Table 2.1. First is the practice ofmooring small vessels within containmentbags and adding herbicides and/or biocides to the waters between the hull and the containment bag, a practice that is not encouraged in the ANZECC (2000) Code of Practice document. The second method was developed by New ZealandDiving and Salvage Ltd (2002) for divers using an underwater vacuum scraper head to remove bio-fouling from vessels while still in the water. Development of this method is described in a report preparedfor the Ministry ofFisheries titledDevelopment ofIncursionResponseTools

- UnderwaterVacuumTrials (NZDiving and Salvage Ltd, 2002). Table 2.1 divides the various systems into types based on the nature ofthe hull-cleaning operation site (e.g., in-water, tidal grid, dry dock etc), the hull cleaning method (e.g., scrubbing, water blasting, vacuuming etc), the waste collection and waste treatment methods (e.g., settling tanks, filtration etc), and the final destination of the solid and liquid fractions of the waste (i.e., land, sea or local sewage treatment plant). The key points to note from Table 2.1 are: • All types ofcleaning operations that occur in-water, or out-of-water but below high tide (e.g., diver cleaning, tidal grids and careening bays), inevitably discharge some orall ofthe solid and liquidwastes to sea. • Only operations that are out-of-watercan effectively contain and treat all wastes and dispose ofliquid and solid effluent in a controlled manner. In-water vacuuming and enclosed-bag herbicide treatmentdoprovide some treatment and containment,butin both these cases some solid and liquid wastes are inevitably discharged to sea. • Operations that do effectively contain waste out-of-water have a number of treatment options and can dispose ofsolids to land and diverttreated liquid waste to any of several discharge options (i.e., back to the sea, re-use for water blasting, treatment on site and/or vialocal sewer systemto wastewatertreatmentplant). In summary a variety ofhull-cleaning methods are currently used in New Zealand with waste management systems that range in complexity from no management at all (i.e., bio-fouling debris falls directly into the sea), to wholly contained collection, treatment and disposal systems.

- 26-

### Evaluation of

### performance of

### existingsystems in NewZealand 

### Performanceoftreatmentsystems tested in this

### project Theperformance ofseveral existing treatment systems was analysed in Objective 1of this report. Conclusions on the survival ofmarine organisms at different stages ofthe testedtreatmentprocesses were provided in Section 12. These conclusions are briefly summarised in Table 2.2. Briefly, we found that large proportions (16%-72%) ofthe marine organisms removed from vessel hulls remained viable after they had been cleaned from the boat. Collection of solid wastes (with disposal to landfill) and containment and treatment ofliquid wastewater by settlement removed> 99% of all macrobiota, with the remaining organisms being mostly of terrestrial or freshwater origin. The latter were effectively removed by filtration of the discharge following settle 

### Performanceofunderwaterhull-cleaning systems The performance of the underwater vacuum cutter head method (NZ Diving and Salvage Ltd, 2002) was assessed by the Cawthron Institute (Nelson) and the detailed findings presented by Coutts (2002). The report concluded that, although the first version of vacuum cutting head was not effective or practical for divers to use, the diver-operated vacuuming nozzle that was subsequently trialled proved to be a more effective and selective method. Overall the report recommended that 

### "Current technology is moving closer towards capturing de-fouled materialfrom the more uniform areas ofthe hull (flat sides), but the challenge now lies with cleaning the areasprotectedfrom strong laminarflows (APSLF) such as the gratings, pipes, sea chests, rope guards, rudders, bow thrusters andbilge keels on the hulls of vessels. It is recommended, therefore, that the diver-operatedvacuuming nozzle be testedduring a merchant ship's hull de-fouling operation to determine whether or not it is a practical toolfor removing, collecting andfiltering de-/ouled materialfrom these APSLF. " (Coutts, 2002). Coutts (2002) also concluded that the filtering systemused by NZDiving and Salvage (2002) could successfully filter material to 50 

### Jlm, although some particulate matter between 200 

### Jlm and 250 

### Jlm was detected in effluent samples after filtration. They noted that it was "

...

### notyet known ifthefiltering plant can be utilised for de-fouling the hulls ofother vessels including merchant ships." They therefore recommended that the system be further tested for performance with different filter bag sizes and flow rates. Similarunderwaterhull cleaning methods have been used in the United States and are still under development by the US Navy (E. 

### Holm, US Navy Surface Warfare Centre, pers. comm.). Examples are the Submerged Cleaning and Maintenance Platform (SCAMP) or the similar SeaKlean multi-brush systems. These mechanical devices are held next to the hull from the thrust and suction generated by a large impellor. The brushes ofthe device rotate and sweep biofouling offthe hull and up a vacuum pipeto collection tanks. While these methods are reportedto be effective atremoving biofouling from vessels stiIl in the water, the efficiency ofthe methods at capturing and containing all potentially viable biological material is reported to be variable depending on the extent ofbio-fouling, conditions in the water and skill ofthe diver

- 27-

### operators (US Navy Unifonn National Discharge Standards (UNDS) website http://unds.bah.com). It 

### is also worth noting that a large proportion of private yachts are cleaned in NZ using simple underwater brushing and scraping techniques that have no residue containment or treatment method at all. For example it has been estimated that around 42% of international yachts are currently cleaned using these in-water hullcleaning methods between one and four times during their stay in NZ (Floed, unpubl. data). The perfonnance of these methods is likely to be at best comparable with Treatment Stage 1in Table 2.2. 

### 14. 

### Consideration ofalternativetreatmenttechnologies There have been many different treatment technologies designed to remove specific types of contaminants from water. International literature on the topic is vast. For removing viable marine organisms from an effluent, the most relevant technologies to consider in addition to those already discussed, are those that focus on separating fine suspended solid particles for other applications (e.g., stonnwater treatment devices) and those relating to the treatment ofship ballast water. Both ofthese are considered in the discussion below. Many other technologies are also available for treating community**wastewat~r** 

### (i.e., sewage) but these technologies tend to focus on removing organic contaminants, dissolved nutrients and pathogenic micro-organisms, usually by using relatively expensive processes (e.g., oxidation ponds, activated sludge processes etc). In addition, these technologies usually rely on biological treatmentprocesses that require 'a continuous influent stream organic load (such as community wastewater) to 'feed' and maintain the treatment micro-organisms. Hull-cleaning waste loads are generally variable, depending on the frequency with which boats are cleaned at the facility and would not, on their own, be suited to these kinds of treatment processes. Biological treatment processes could remove contaminants from hull-cleaning wastes that have other effects on the environment (e.g., soluble anti-fouling chemicals), but the most cost effective way to achieve this is likely to be discharging into an existing community sewerage system, having first removed a proportion of the gross and suspended solids. 

### Suspended-particle removal technologies commonly used for 

### stormwater The USEPA Management Measure for Marinas and Recreational Boating (USEPA 1993) lists a number of particle removal technologies that can be used to treat stonnwater run-off from marinas and hull maintenance sites (see Appendix Table A4). These technologies (and/or slight variations of them) are common options for treating urban stonnwater in New Zealand arid the Auckland Regional Council has recently reviewed their use (ARC 2003). Several of these treatment options could potentially be applied to hull-cleaning situations, depending on site-specific characteristics and space limitations. These are: • Holding (settling) tanks
• Sand (or other media) filters



### - 28-

### • Infiltration trenches orbasins
• Vegetative swales orfilter strips
• Ponds and/or wetlands
• Oil and grit separators • Coarse contaminant traps (or swirl concentrators)
• Absorbant booms orpillows These options are compared in Table 2.3(A), with comments on cost considerations, performance reliability, and practical advantages and disadvantages. A brief summary ofeach is providedbelow. 

### Settlingtanks Settling tanks are basically large containers designed to hold volumes of waste for prolonged retention periods. These can be steel concrete, fibreglass orpolymer tanks that are used for above-ground storage, orsubsurface constructed tanks. Contaminant removal is essentially by "settling out" of suspended particles that are denser than water. In the context oftreatment to reduce risks to marine biosecurity, treatment in these systems is also afforded by the prolongedexposure ofmarine organisms to fresh water in the tank. Settling tanks are currently the most common method ofprimary treatment for hull-cleaning wastes in New Zealand and have been shown in this study (Objective 1) to be reasonably effective at removing viable marine organisms. They are relatively cheap to install (-NZ$5,000-1O,000) and on-going maintenance and operation involves simple removal and disposal ofaccumulated waste to landfill. The key issue for successful implementation is sufficient storage volume to allow a satisfactory time for retention ofliquid effluent and effective baffling for serial flow and low turbulence. The longer the retention time the more effective treatment for viable organisms is likely to be. Depending on the retention time, settling tanks are capable of removing 50-75% of total suspended solids (USEPA 1993, ARC2003). The USEPA (1993) reports that well-designed systems can retain up to 100% of particles during a first flush influent event. Overall treatment performance can be enhancedby supplementary add-ons afterprimary settling such as sand filtration. 

### Sand (or othermedia) filters Sand filters consist oflayers of sand ofvarying grain size (grading from coarse sand to fine sands or peat), with an underlying gravel bed for infiltration or perforated underdrains for discharge oftreated water. Pollutant removal is achieved mainly by "straining" pollutants through the filtering media with detention time typically 4 to 6 hours (USEPA 1993), although increased detention time will increase performance. Sand filters are the second most common treatment method for hull-cleaning wastes in New Zealand and have also been shown to be effective secondary treatment for removing viable marine organisms (Objective 1, this study). They are an effective add-on to primary settling tanks but would be less effective as a stand-alone primary treatment because they clog quickly and require frequent maintenance when coarse particulates are not first removed. When added to polish the discharge from settlement tanks, sand filters can provide a very high level ofconfidence for reducing biosecurity risk and can also remove a large proportion (75-89%) of suspended

- 29-

### particulate material associated with chemical hull-cleaning contaminants. Discharge ofeffluent onto a sandy beach, as is practiced in some locations, is not considered an appropriate form ofsand filtration. The initial outlay for installation of sand filters can be large. McClary and Nelligan (2000) reported atypical cost of$NZI5,000 for a small sand filter system suitable for most New Zealand slipways. Other systems (e.g. remedial Solutions Inc. AquashieldTM filter media, Hynds Pipe Systems Ltd in-line and source control sand filters) have roughly similar costs. US EPA (1993) estimated that the overall costs of treatment using sand filters were in the order of US$3.53 (-NZ$5.66) per l00L of run-off treated and that maintenance costs were approximately 5% of the initial capital costs. InfIltrationtrenches orbasins Infiltration basins and trenches are essentially large holding basins or trenches with pervious floors. They operate in a similar way to sand filters except that the filtering material is located in a trench or basin rather than being contained within a sealed tank. Influent is treated by filtering down through the bed media and may infiltrate to uncontained groundwater or may be collected in contained underlying drains before piping to a point-source discharge. Infiltration devices**~hould** 

### drain within 72 hours of an influent event and should be dry at other times (USEPA 1993) although permanent shallow wetlands can also be constructed to behave as infiltration basins. The performance ofinfiltration basins is similar to that ofsand filters except that the entire discharge can potentially be assimilated through land, without the need for any liquid discharge to sea. However, infiltration basins require a large area offlat land and this will limit their utility for boat cleaning facilities. They have not been tested for treating hull-cleaning wastes in New Zealand. Vegetative swales orfilter strips Vegetative swales and filter strips are low-gradient conveyance channels that remove contaminants by entrapment and settling ofparticulate contaminants as the flow runs perpendicular to surface vegetation. They are not practical on very flat grades or on steep slopes orin wet orpoorly drained soils and require areasonably large land area. They can be applied where flow rates are not expected to exceed 0.5 m per second (USEPA 1993), but again, the requirement for large areas of land makes them impractical for most boat yard situations. USEPA (2003) estimates an outlay of between NZ$20,000 and NZ$200,000 per hectare for the installation of vegetative

.filter strips. Where land is available, smaller (and cheaper) versions could potentially

be used as a final treatment step'for liquid residues after some form ofinitial particle removal. Theyhave not been tested for treatinghull-cleaning wastes in NewZealand. Pondsand/orwetlands Ponds and wetlands are designed to maintain a permanent pool of water and temporary storage capacity for influent. They provide treatment through several mechanisms including settling, coagulation and precipitation and via biological uptake by plants and microorganisms living in the pond or wetland. They would also provide treatment for removal ofviable marine organisms by exposure to freshwater. The key issue is that they also require a relatively large area, are expensive to build,

- 30-

### and are often problematic and expensive to maintain. Wetlands also require a continuous influent supply to remain effective unless another surface or groundwater sources are available. They have not been tested for treating hull-cleaning wastes in New Zealand. 

### Oil andgritseparators Oil and grit separators are constructed traps designed to catch solids via settling and oil via surface floating separation. They are commonly used for stormwatertreatment where there is a high likelihood of hydrocarbon contamination. Oil and grit separators successfully reduce hydrocarbon contamination and particulates (coarse material only), when properly designed and installed. They are mainly suitable for oil droplets 

### > 150**~m** 

### in size, but can remove a significant proportion of contaminants from relatively small flows, especially when space is limited because they can be built to occupy only a small area beneath the ground. However performance can be variable and generally only large particle sizes are removed with significant quantities of small suspended solids passing through (Appendix Table A4). The costs of installation are moderate. McClary and Nelligan (2000) reported that a typical unit of 3000L capacity was around NZ$5,000. They have not been tested for treating hullcleaning wastes in New Zealand.


### Coarse contaminanttraps (or swirl concentrators) These are contaminant traps usually constructed below ground that use the flow of influent from a pipe to create a centrifugal flow around a cylindrical tank to enhance particle separation. Various types exist (e.g., Hynds Pipe Systems Ltd Downstream DefenderTM and CDS Technologies Continuous Deflective Separation systemTM). They are intended to operate under high flow regimes to generate a circular current and are unlikely to perform well at slow flow velocities. They can be effective at removing large particle sizes but, again, small suspended solids pass through. Costs ofinstallation are likely to be in the**o~der** 

### ofNZ$10,000

- $NZ30,000. They have not been tested for treating hull-cleaning wastes in New Zealand.


### Absorbantbooms orpillows Absorbent booms or pillows can be very useful additions to supplement other treatment systems where oil and grease contaminants are included in the waste stream. They can be placed in ponds, holding tanks, retention basins, coarse sediment traps and also in pipework. 

### Summary 

### In summary, all of these methods have been shown to be effective at removing different types ofcontaminants (see Appendix Table A4) and all have been shown to be useful in specific situations for urban stormwater in New Zealand. However only the settling tank and sand-filter methods have been tried and performance tested for reducingbiosecurityrisk for hull-cleaning situations in New Zealand. The performance of the other 'through land' methods (Le. infiltration trenches or basins, vegetative swales, filter strips, ponds and wetlands) will typically be variable from site to site because it depends on construction detai,ls, soil and vegetation types

- 31

-

### as well as local hydrogeology and hydraulic conditions. Thereforethere would need to be a significant development and testing component ifthese options were applied to hull-cleaning operations. The methods for removing oil and coarse contaminants (Le., oil separators, coarse contaminant traps and absorbant booms) can be effective for this purpose, but are unlikely to be sufficient on their own to reducebiosecurity risk.
Ballast water treatment technologies 

### Treatment options for reducing the biosecurity risk of ship ballast water discharges have been reviewed relatively recently by Rigby and Taylor (2001), and in papers presented in the Proceedings ofthe 1 st

### International BallastWaterTreatmentResearch and Development Symposium in London (Raaymakers 2001). From these sources, the available technologies that we consider could be relevant for hull-cleaning operations are summarisedbelow:
• Use offresh waterto kill viable marine organisms
• Use ofheatto kill viable organisms
• Self-cleaning mechanical filters
• Hydrocyclones ormechanical centrifugal particle separators • Chemical biocides including hydrogen peroxide, chlorine (hypochlorite), chlorine dioxide, ozone, glutaraldehyde, copper/silver ion systems and natural biocides.
• Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation to kill viable organisms These options are compared in Table 2.3(B), with comments on cost considerations, performance reliability, and practical advantages and disadvantages. Only the freshwater exposure method has been performance tested for hull-cleaning residues (in this study). The application of all of the other technologies to ballast-water treatment or hull-cleaning operations for the management of risk to marine biosecurity, is a relatively new and developing area internationally. This is illustrated by the overall conclusions presented in Raaymakers (2001) that included:
• "All ofthe variouspotential ballastwater treatment technologies 

### [including those listed above] are currently at a very early stage ofdevelopment and significant further research is required.
• It is likely to be some years before a new ballast water treatment system is developed, proven effective, approved and accepted internationally for operational use. • Itappears that any new ballastwater treatmentsystem will involve a combination oftechnologies,for exampleprimaryfiltration orphysical separationfollowed by a secondary biocidal treatment. " 

### In summary, none of these alternatives is a guaranteed 'off-the-shelf' solution for treating hull-cleaning wastes. Therefore there would need to be a significant development and testing component if any of these options were applied to hullcleaning operations.

- 32-Advancedtechnologies for toxic chemicalcontaminants 

### There are other treatment technologies, either in use or currently under development, to reduce the concentrations of anti-fouling chemicals in hull-cleaning residues and ballast waters. These treatments may also be effective in reducing the risk ofrelease ofharmful marine organisms. In 

### situations where anti-fouling residues are likely to enter the hull-cleaning waste stream (e.g., in operations involving high pressure water blasting or abrasive cleaning) requirements for the retention and removal of fine particulate material associated with toxins may drive a requirement for additional treatment considerations for discharges regulated by consents under the Resource ManagementAct. Any treatment system that removes particulate materials (e.g., settling, filtration or other particulate separation) will also remove a substantial proportion of anti-foulant chemicals associated with these particulates and viable marine organisms. However they are unlikely to remove all soluble contaminants, including anti-foulant chemicals such as tributyltin (TBT). Soluble contaminants are much more difficult to remove and few methods currently exist that are effective at apracticable scale for large hullcleaning operations. This is confirmed in the proceedings of the Oceans '99 Conference in Seattle

- Treatment of Regulated Discharges from Shipyards and Drydocks (Champ et al. 1999) whose overall conclusions included:


### • "There is only one advanced waste treatment system in the world that has successfully treated industrial volumes ofTBTin wastewaters in accordance with shipyard operations (36 

### hoursfor washdown). The CASRM Barge Mounted System has evolvedfrom bench type laboratory scale treatment systems to a shipyardsize demonstrationproject.
• There is no inexpensive advanced treatment system or technologies available in commercial sizes that can rapidly treat million gallon quantities of TBT contaminatedship washdown orrunoffwastewatersfrom shipyardsanddrydocks. In 

### light ofthis, the most effective mechanism currently available for managing these toxic chemical contaminants is probably to remove as large aproportion as possible of particulate material for controlled disposal to land, and to discharge the liquideffluent via community sewer system to the local wastewater treatment plant. This assumes that the level of contamination does not adversely affect any microbiological treatment communities at the local treatment plant. Ifthe discharge is not acceptable to the local treatmentplant operator the only remaining option wouldbe disposal at an appropriate hazardous waste facility. Recommendations (1) 

### Results from this study show that reliance solely on physical cleaning processes, either in-water or on land (e.g., scraping, water blasting, brushing etc), without any containment or treatment ofresidues, is unlikely to reduce risks for marine biosecurity to acceptably low levels. The exception to this is where the risk is already low due to a vessel having remained in local waters since last being cleaned. This is consistent with the Australian Code ofPractice for Antifouling



### - 33-

### and In-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance (ANZECC 2000) which recommends that; "In-water hull cleaning is prohibited, except under extra ordinary circumstancesandpermission willnotnormallybe granted". (2) For vessels that have travelled outside local waters, and that therefore pose a risk to local marine biosecurity, the risk can be reduced to low levels «1% survival of organisms, based on the results from this study) by containing and collecting the hull-cleaning waste and exposing itto fresh water in settling tanks with sufficiently long retention times. Key characteristics of the treatment systems shown to be effective in this study were: • Hard-stand hull-cleaning work area above high tide mark orin dry-dock.
• Containment of all liquid and solid waste (usually achieved using walls, bunds, cut-offdrains and isolated sumps).
• Collection ofall solid and liquid waste residues with disposal ofsolids on land and diversion ofliquids to settling tank treatment systems. • Treatment of liquid waste residues by exposure to fresh water and particulate separation in settling tanks. Typically the tanks were baffled to provide at least three holding chambers operating in series with total retention time of at least 2 weeks. Shorter retention times may be effective but were not assessed during this study. Site-specific monitoring could be undertaken by operators to investigate the efficacy ofshorterretention times atparticular sites.
• Treatment in settling tanks was in some cases (but not all) followed by filtration viaeither sand-bedor sand andpeat-bedfilters.
• Discharge of settled or filtered solid residues on land. Discharge of treated liquid effluentto seaorto local sewer system. (3) For operators that already have some form of collection and settling tank treatment system, the most cost-effective option is likely to be retain and/or modify theexisting systemto achieve the characteristics listedin (2) above. (4) For operators that do not currently have treatment systems, the simplest and most cost-effective option is likely to be that described in (2) above. This recommendation is based simply on'the fact that this is the most commonly used system in New Zealand and is a system that has been shown to be effective at reducing biosecurity risk in results from this study. This recommendation does notprecludethe use ofother, possibly more sophisticated, systems. Another system shown to be effective in this study is the Devonport treatment plant that uses clarifiers and filters. This system is more expensive than simple settling tanks but is likely to perform to a higher standard for removing other potential contaminants (see recommendation (6) below). (5) Notwithstanding (3) and (4) above, there are other methods that could, on sitespecific consideration, also prove to be cost-effective for operators. These include the use of heat treatment (particularly if a waste-heat source is locally available), filtration devices (particularly if waste volumes are small),



### - 34-

### centrifugal separation systems (particularly if space is limited), chemical biocides (iflocal circumstances allow) and targeted underwater hull vacuuming (in cases where removal ofthe vessel from water is not an option). The relative merits ofthese options would need to be considered on the basis ofsite-specific characteristics, locally-specific biosecurity risk and locally-specific environmental effects. The literature suggests some alternative treatment options show promise, but their reliability and practicality for hull-cleaning applications remains to be confirmed. There would need to be a significant development and testing component as part of implementation ofany ofthese options. (6) The results from this study suggest that biosecurity risks can be reduced to low levels using containment and settling tank separation methods with exposure to fresh water and without subsequent filtration. However, there are likely to be additional benefits ofincluding filtration or other more sophisticated treatment technologies as 'add-ons' to the operations process: • First, filtration provides an additional buffer of confidence in reducing risks to marine biosecurity, by providing a final 'catch all' removal of particles greater than the McClary and Nelligan (2001) proposed 'particle standard'

. • Second, filtration will improve the removal of fine particulates and associated anti-fouling chemicals, and this will be important for operators who not only need to manage marine biosecurity risk, but who also need consents for discharges to the sea under the Resource Management Act, or may need permission to divert hull-cleaning waste to local community wastewatertreatmentplants. 

### 15. Publications Nil 

### 16. Data storage 17. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the owners and operators of the Lyttelton dry-dock, Orams Marine Maintenance, the Westpark Marina, Westhaven Marina, GulfHarbourMarina and the Tauranga Marina for their kind help and assistance with the planning and completion ofthe fieldwork involved in this project. Thanks are also due to the vessel owners who gave permission to sample fouling assemblages on their hulls, and to Marty Flanagan and Karen Robinson (NIW 

### A) who built field equipment and analysed the liquid samples. John Millet (Akzo Nobel) provided the formulae for calculating TWSA, Eric Holm (U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Center) obtained the U.S. Navy's Manual on Underwater Hullcleaning of Navy Ships, and Graham Fenwick, Dennis Gordon, Michelle Kelly-Shanks, Sheryl Miller, Wendy Nelson and Geoff Read (NIWA) provided taxonomic expertise and helped developing guidelines for the assessment ofviability in marine sessile organisms in the field.

.



### - 35-18. References Adams, N. M. (1994). Seaweeds of New Zealand: an illustrated guide: Canterbury University Press, Christchurch. AMOG Consulting (2002). Hull fouling as a vector for the translocation of marine organisms. Phase I: Hull fouling research. Ballast Water Research Series, Report No. 14. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia. Canberra. Andrews, J. D. (1973). Effects of tropical storm Agnes on epifaunal invertebrates in Virginia estuaries. Chesapeake Science 14: 223-234. Ani!, A. 

## c., Chiba, K., Okamoto, K., and Kurokura, H. (1995). Influence oftemperature and salinity on larval development of Balanus amphitrite: implications in fouling ecology. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

### 118: 159-166. ANZECC (2000). Code of Practice for Antifouling and In-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance. Prepared by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (Maritime Accidents and Pollution Implementation Group), Canberra. Apte, S., Holland, B. S., Godwin, L. S., and Gardner, J. P. A. (2000). Jumping ship: a stepping stone event mediating transfer of a non-indigenous species via a potentiallyunsuitable environment.BiologicalInvasions 2: 75-79. Auckland Regional Council (2002). Proposed Auckland Regional Coastal Plan. Preparedby the AucklandRegional Council March 2002. Auckland Regional Council (2003). Stormwater Treatment Devices Design Guidelines Manual. Technical Publication #10 of the Auckland Regional Council. Available at: http://www.arc.govt.nzllibrary/n46905_2.pdf. Brunetti, R., Beghi, L., Bressan, M., and Martin, M. G. (1980). Combined effects of temperature and salinity on colonies of Botryllus schlosseri and Botrylloides leachi (Ascidiacea) from the Venetian Lagoon. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2: 303-314. Bureau of Rural Sciences (1999). National Policy for the translocation of live aquatic organisms

- issues, -principles and guidelines for implementation. Consultation paper for the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture. Available at: http://www.brs.gov.auifish/translocation.pdf. Cawthorne, D. F. (1978). Tolerance of some cirripede nauplii to fluctuating salinities. Marine Biology46: 321-325. CDSTM Technologies Pty Ltd (2003). Product reference material for Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS)TM treatment system. Available at: http://www.cdstech.com.au

- 36-Champ, M. A., Fox, T. J., Mearns, A. J. Eds. (1999). Proceedings of the special sessions held at Oceans 99 in Seattle Washington, September 13-16 1999 on: Treatment of Regulated Discharges from Shipyards and Drydocks. Volume No. (4) 1999, ISBN No. 0-933957-24-26. The Marine Technology Society, Washington, D.C. 20036. Clark, C. (1973). Stainingprocedures. Williams &Wilkins, Baltimore. Coates, M. and Byron, G. T. (1991). Effects of the January 1991 Fitzroy flood on intertidal invertebrate communities of Keppel Bay. In: Workshop on the impacts of flooding (G. T. Byron,'ed.). Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, TownsvilIe. Page 155. Coutts, A. D. M. (2002): The development of incursion response tools

- underwater vacuum and filtering system trials. Reportprepared for NZDiving and Salvage Ltd. Cawthron ReportNo. 755. Cawthron Institute, Nelson. Coutts, A. D. M., Moore, K. M., and Hewitt, C. L. (2003). Ships' sea chests: an overlooked transfer mechanisms for non-indigenous marine species? 

### Marine PollutionBulletin. Cranfield, H. J., Gordon, D. P., Willan, R. 

### c., Marshall, B. A., Battershill, C. N., Francis, M. P., Nelson, W. A., Glasby, C. J., and Read, G. B. (1998). Adventive marine species in New Zealand. NIWA Technical Report 34. National Institute ofWater and Atmospheric Research, Wellington. Currie, D. R., McArthur, M. A., and Cohen, B. F. (2000). Reproduction and distribution of the invasive European fanworm 

### Sabella'spallanzanii (Polychaeta: Sabellidae) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. 

### Marine Biology 136: 645- 654. Department ofConservation (1994). New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Issued by the' Minister of Conservation and published by the Department of Conservation, May 1994. Dodgshun, T. and Coutts, A. D. M. (2002). Ships' sea chests: a 'side door' for marine pests? Cawthron Institute, Nelson. Dodgshun, T. J. and Coutts, A. D. M. (2003). Opening the lid on sea chests. 

### Seafood New Zealand 11:35. Environment and Natural Resources Committee (1997). Report on Ballast Water and

. Hull Foulingin Victoria. Victorian GovernmentPrinter, Melbourne. Environment Bay ofPlenty (2001). Bay ofPlenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan. Adopted by the Bay ofPlenty Regional Council, July 2003. Environment Waikato (2001). Proposed Waikato Regional Coastal Plan. Incorporates amendments made by the Waikato Regional Council as a result of Council Decisions and Environment Court Consent Orders made on the Plan to August 2001.

- 37-

### Fuchs, R., 

### Steiner, N., de Wilde, 

### 1. and Voigt, M. (2001). Peraclean® Ocean - a potential ballast water treatment option. Pages 76-80 in: Raaymakers, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1 st 

### International Ballast Water Treatment Research and Development Symposium. IMOLondon. Hill, M. B. (1967). The life cycles and salinity tolerance of the serpulids Mercierella enigmatica Fauvel and Hydroides uncinata (Philippi) at Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of AnimalEcology 36: 303-321. Hynds Pipe Systems Ltd (2003). Product reference material for Hynds Downstream DefenderTM and Hynds Sand Filter Systems. Available at: http://www.hynds.co.nz 

### Jones, D. F. (2000). The impact of underwater ships' husbandry on the marine environment. Paper presented at the Ensus 2000

- Marine Science and Technology for Sustainability conference, Newcastleupon Tyne, UK. Kitamura, H. and Hirayama, K. (1985). Theeffectoflow salinity on the early growth of a bryozoan Bugula neritina in the sea and laboratory. Bulletin ofthe Japanese Society of ScientificFisheries 51: 1401-1405. Lohse, D. P. (1993). The importance of secondary substratum in a rocky intertidal community. Journal of ExperimentalMarine Biology andEcology 166: 1-17. Mak, P. M. S. and Huang, Z. G. (1982). The salinity tolerance of the serpulid polychaete, Hydroides elegans (Haswell, 1883), and its possible applications in .bio-antifouling. In: The marine flora and fauna of Hong Kong and Southern China. Volume 2: Ecology, morphology, behaviour and physiology. (B. 

### Morton and C.**~.** 

### Tseng, eds.). Pages 817-823. Matawari, S. F. 

### (1951). The natural history of a common fouling bryozoan, Bugula neritina. Miscellaneous Reports of the Research Institute for Natural Resources, Tokio 19-21: 47-54. Matheickal, J. T., Waite, T. D. and Mylvaganam, S. T. (2001). Ballast water treatment by filtration. Pages 7-20 in: Raaymakers, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st 

### International BallastWater TreatmentResearch and Development Symposium. IMO London. McClary, D. J and Nelligan, R. 

### J. (2001) Alternate biosecurity management tools for vector threats: technical guidelines for acceptable hull cleaning facilities. Kingett Mitchell & 

### Associates Ltd. Report prepared for the New Zealand Ministry ofFisheries (ProjectZBS2000103). 

### McCracken, W. E. (2001). Ballast Water Treatment with Currently Available Biocides. Pages 81-87 in: Raaymakers, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st 

### International Ballast Water Treatment Research and Development Symposium. IMO London. Minchin, D. and Gollasch, S. (2003). Fouling and ships' hulls.: how changing circumstances and spawning events may result in the spread ofexotic species. Biofouling 19 (Supplement): 111-122.

- 38-

### Natural Heritage Trust (2003). Marine Waste Reception Facilities Programme. Website of the Australian Natural Heritage Trust -Australian Government Initiative (http://www.nht.gov.au/nhtl/programs/mwrfp/qld.html). NIMPIS (2002a). National Introduced Marine Pest Information System. Centre for Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP), CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart. Available at: NIMPIS (2002). Crassostrea gigas 

### species summary. National Introduced Marine Pest Information System (Eds: Hewitt c.L., Martin RB., Sliwa C., McEnnulty, F.R, Murphy, N.E., Jones T. & Cooper, S.). Web publication <http://crimp.marine.csiro.au/nimpis>, Date of access: October 2004. NIMPIS (2002b). National Introduced Marine Pest Information System. Centre for Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP), CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart. Available at: NIMPIS (2002). Botrylloides leachi 

### species summary. National Introduced Marine Pest Information System (Eds: Hewitt C.L., Martin RB., Sliwa c., McEnnulty, F.R, Murphy, N.E., Jones 

# r. & 

### Cooper, S.). Web publication <http://crimp.marine.csiro.au/nimpis>, Date of access: October 2004. NIMPIS (2002c). National Introduced Marine Pest Information System. Centre for Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP), CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart. Available at: NIMPIS (2002). Undaria pinnatifida 

### species summary. National Introduced Marine Pest Information System (Eds: Hewitt C.L., Martin RB., Sliwa C., McEnnulty, F.R., Murphy, N.E., Jones T. & 

### Cooper, S.). Web publication <http://crimp.marine.csiro.au/nimpis>, Date of access: October 2004. NIMPIS (2002d). National Introduced Marine Pest Information System. Centre for Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP), CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart. Available at: NIMPIS (2002). Sabella spallanzanii 

### species summary. National Introduced Marine Pest Information System (Eds: Hewitt C.L., Martin RB., Sliwa c., McEnnulty, F.R, Murphy, N.E., Jones T. & 

### Cooper, S.). Web publication <http://crimp.marine.csiro.au/nimpis>, Date of access: October 2004. NZ Diving and Salvage Ltd. (2002). Development of Incursion Response Tools

- Underwater VacuumTrials. Report prepared for the NZMinistry ofFisheries. Raaymakers, S. (ed.) (2001). Proceedings of the 1 st 

### International Ballast Water TreatmentResearch and Development Symposium, IMO London, 26-27 March 2001. Read, G. B. and Gordon, D. P. (1991). Adventive occurrence of the fouling serpulid Ficopomatus enigmaticus 

### (Polychaeta) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine andFreshwaterResearch 25: 

### 269-273. Remedial Solutions Inc. (2003). Product reference material for AquashieldTM filter media treatment systems. Available at: http://www.remedialsolutions.com

- 39-Rigby, G. and Taylor, A. (2001). BallastWaterTreatment

- An Overview ofOptions. Pages 3-6 in: Raaymakers, S. (ed.), Proceedings ofthe 1st International Ballast WaterTreatmentResearch and Development Symposium. 

### IMO London. Rigby, G., Taylor, A., Hallegraeff, G (2001). Ballast Water Treatment by Heat

- an Overview. Pages 31-34 in: Raaymakers, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International BallastWaterTreatmentResearch and Development Symposium. 

### IMO London. Saito, Y. (1975). 

### Undaria. In: Advance of Phycology in Japan. (1. Tokida and H. Hirose, eds.). Or. W. Jungb.v., DenHaag. Pages 304-320. Sanderson, J. C. and Barrett, N. (1989). A survey of the distribution ofthe introduced Japanese macroalgae 

### Undaria pinnatifida (Harvey) Suringer in Tasmania, December 1988. Technical Report, Department of Sea Fisheries Tasmania, Hobart. Straughan, D. (1972). Ecological studies of

### Mercierella enigmatica Fauvel (Annelida: Polychaeta) in the BrisbaneRiver. 

### Journal of AnimalEcology 41: 93-138. Sutherland, T., Levings, C., Petersen, S. and Hesse, W. (2001). The influence of cyclonic separation and UV treatment on the mortality of marine plankton. Pages 120-125 in: Raaymakers, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Ballast Water Treatment Research and Development Symposium. 

### IMO London. USEPA (1993). Guidance specifying management measures for sources of non-point pollution in coastal waters
- Management Measures for Marinas and Recreational Boating. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1993 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOWINPSIMMGIIChapter5Ich5-2e.html). United States Navy (2002). Naval Ships' Technical Manual Chapter 081

- Waterborne Underwater Hull Cleaning of Navy Ships. Published by direction of Commander, Naval SeaSystems Command, April 2002. United States Navy (2003). Uniform National Discharge Standards

- Nature of Discharge Report for Underwater ShipHusbandry. Reportpreparedby the US Navy, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Coast Guard. Available at: http://unds.bah.com. Waite, T. D., Kazumi, J., Farmer, L., Capo, T. R., Lane, P., Hitchcock, G., Smith, S. L. and Smith, S. G. (2001). Testing of ballast water treatment technologies at large scale. Pages 95-103 in: Raaymakers, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International BallastWaterTreatmentResearch and Development Symposium. 

### IMO London. Wallentinus, I. (1999). Exotics across the ocean - 

### Undaria pinnatifida (Harvey) Suringar, 1872. In: Exotics across the ocean: Case histories on introduced species: their biology, distribution, range expansion and impact. (S. Gollasch, D. Minchin, H. Rosenthal, and M. Voigt, eds.) Department ofFishery Biology, Institutefor Marine Science, Kiel. Pages 11-19.

- 40-

### Wellington Regional Council (2001). Wellington Regional Coastal Plan. Adopted by theWellington Regional Council, May 2000. Wright, D. A. 

### and Dawson, R. 

### (2001). SEAKLEEN® - a potential natural biocide for ballast water treatment. Pages 73-75 in: Raaymakers, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st 

### International Ballast Water Treatment Research and Development Symposium. IMO London.

- 41
-List oftables, figures and plates

. ,. :

### .....**'''~:.:- ,~.:** **~** TO " ' • '
:- : .',**~** ,

. " ....-: ':--, -. ' .

.' J" '. j

., ...**~** .. " .' 

### -,Table 1.1: Hull cleaning facilities that were visited or contacted during Research ProjectZBS2002-04. Facility

, > , . Vessels removed from Westpark Marina

, .. water for cleaning

. " .:' 'l":<' " : I**~** i; (: ._" ". " ',- ,

. , ;./ .,,!**~:,** . Vessels cleaned in the ',! , ' ',;

..: ,';"':'**.;.~** •

# wate'r

'. ;:.: \ > •**~~~** • :**~.** I' I ( ' ••**\~ ,:~:**  • -;0 ,i**~'** .'


### . .i';,

,:; • f
- "1 , ,. /+ . '**~** I,' •

> C Lyttelton Port Co.
Orams Marine Maintenance, Tauranga Marina Socie,ty Tauranga Marina Society Whangarei Cruising Club GulfHarbour Marina
Orams Marine Maintenance Location No. vessels cleaned p.a. (no. intern'lt Auckland 2,000 (50) Lyttelton 70 (7)
Auckland 2,000 (15) Tauranga 2,000 (&)
Tauranga 2,000 (8) Whangarei 75(\9) Whangaparaoa 3,120 (&0)
Auckland 2,000 (15) Hull cleaning operations visited Travel lift Dry-dock Slipway Travel lift Slipway Travel lift

Tidal grids
Tidal grids

Diver services
Diver services Separation ofsolids and liquids Settling tanks
Settlementtanks & flocculating agent Grit arrestors Settlingtanks I Sand filter
nla
nla nla nla
nla Filtration of liquids
No (20 mm)
No
Sand filter
100llm

nla
nla nla nla
nla Disposal Solids/Liquids Landfill/ Sea
Landtill/ Sea
Landfill/ Sea
Landfilll Sea

Landfill
Landfill

Sea
Sea

..Source: McClary & Nelligan (200I). These figures refer to the sum ofvessels cleaned in all available operations offered by the facilities. Forexample 2,000 vessels are'cleaned in the Tauranga Marinaeach year; 5 % on the tidal grids and 95 % on the hard-stand (using a travel lift).I-F' • "**~** , :' ';',.-".,

i

'.**,~"** r'

. .**~**

, ).1.**"'~: ~",**  ;**~** ",': "

! • " ,'.

" 

### ..

! ";-

", • I.

, '. " " ,,'

, :;'.,

2. Vessels cleaned in the water ,Operation Facility (no. vessels cleaned)

Travel lift Orams Marine, Auckland (3)

Westpark Marina, Auckland (3)

Tauranga Marina (4)

Cleaningby Orams Marine, Auckland (3) divers

GulfHarbourMarina, Whangaparaoa(3) Vessel name (date sampled)

A. Slobodchikov (16/05/03) Godley (16/07/03) Hebe (28/08/03) Chancellor (10/06/03) Lady Crossley (10/06/03) Macllshla (11/06/03) No. I (name n/a) (16/06/03) No. 2 (name n/a) (16/06/03) Bahia (16/06/03) Chris Robertson (02107/03) Ma Cherie (02107/03) No. 3 (name n/a) (03/07/03) No. 4 (name n/a) (03/07/03) Triptych (11/06/03) No. 2 (name n/a) (11/06/03) Sympatica (11/06/03) Lady Theodora (27/06/03) MoanaAriki(27/06/03) No. 3 (name n/a) (27/06/03) Vessel type Length Fishing trawler 104.5 m Harbourtug 28.7 m LPGTanker 76.4 m Motoryacht 11.5 m Sailingyacht 16.15 m Sailingyacht 12.03 m Harbourtug 14.8 m Motoryacht l3.4m Sailingyacht 12.5 m Sailingyacht 12.2 m Launch 12.8m Launch 12.8 m Sailingyacht 11.9 m Motoryacht 21.3 m Sailingyacht 15.24 m Motoryacht 13.7 m Sailingyacht IOm Sailingyacht IOm Sailingyacht 10.5 m Total wetted surface area 1762.5 m 2 213.7 m 2 715.6 m 2 23 m 2 36.5 m 2 33.0 m 2 59.6 m 2 43.7 m 2

. 50 m 2 18.3 m] 41.6 m 2 23.8 m 2 42.8 m 2 127.8 m 2 48.8 m 2 71.24 m 2 30 m 2 30m2 31.5 m 2 Area fouled; fouling weight (::I:SE) 263.2::1:80.9 m 2 ; 614::1:285 kg 36.1::1:16.7 m 2; 79::1:22 kg 112.9::1:45.6 m 2; 122::1:57 kg 1.2::1:0.7 m 2; 1.6::1:0.4 kg 1.6::1:0.6 m 2; 0.6::1:0.1 kg 15.5::1:2.4 m 2; 151::1:65 kg 17.2::1:3.7 m 2; 69::1:41 kg 1.6::1:0.5 m 2; 1.9::1:0.1 kg 4.1::1:3.2 m 2; 0.9::1:0.1 kg 0.3::1:0.1 m 2; 0.05::1:0.006 kg 1.3::1:0.4 m 2; 1.6::1:0.1 kg 0.7::1:0.3 m 2; 0.9::1:0.2 kg 1.3::1:0.4 m 2; 0.7::1:0.1 kg 4.8::1:1.2 m 2; 1.2::1:0.6 kg 1.5::1:0.8 m 2; 0.3::1:0.06 kg 5.5::1:2.6 m 2; 0.6::1:0.1 kg 1.2::1:0.66 m 2; 1.0::1:0.4 kg 4.5::1:1.6 m 2; 3.6::1:0.5 kg 8.1::1:1.5 m 2; 30.9::1:10.4 kg'-:,
..
','" I':**~.** , ,

, ." 

### , 

## ., , ..

, , '

# ..**~,.** 

### r, .
. \**~** \ . I" 

### Table 1.3: Numbers of whole organisms or fragments (summarised to broad groups) examined in solid waste removed from cleaned vessels in each operation. Formore detail see Appendix Table A2.

Lyttelton Port

Orams Maripe (haul-out)**~estp~rk** Marina
TaurangaMarina A. Slobodchikov Godley Hebe Chancellor Lady Crossley Macllshla No. I (name n/a) No. 2 (name n/a) Bahia Chris Robertson MaCherie No. 3 (name n/a)**~o.** 4 (name n/a) Triptych No. 2 (name n/a)

,Sympatica

Lady Theodora MoanaAriki No. 3 (name n/a) Total no.'sampled 42 36 131 4 

## o o 130 24 4 

## o 1850

13 14 

## o o o 134 72 48 2502 156 17 I 11 12 9 33 2 

### o 

## o 82 

## o o 

## o o o 3 2 40 368 en § oNo C co 1 10 17 47 17 20 

## o 200 54 58 

### o 132 104 166 150 5 32 45 15 1073 

### o 21 

## o 26 13 73 

## o 50 

### o 8 

### o 64 

## o 5 

### o
146 38 169 614 

### o 9 

## o o o o 

## o o o 

## o 1 

### o 

## o o o 

## o o o o 10 en en ;::l**~** o Q)

- <1:1 ;::l..c: .S:! u ..0>-' ;::l- 

### 1-8..

o 4 

## o 65 15 21

1 8 70 435



### o 1337 47 120 100 1011 396 1407 252 5289 11 

## o o 

## o o 1 17 

## o o o o 1 

## o o 4 1 9 8 15 67 en Q) 01) 

# = o 0.. (/) 

### o 10 

## o 3 

## o 7 

## o o 

## o o o

. 0



## o o 1 3 9 2 36 

### o 4 28 

## o o 30 13 2 

## o o o 2 

## o 3 

## o o o o o 82 en § Q)**~** g 

# .-

# -

- en o 

### 2 ::E u

2 

## o 

## o o o 26

1 

## o o 37 

### o 2 

## o 20 5 

## o 4 4 7 108 en U**~ ~**  

# .-

# - 

# -- o 0 ::E E



### o 

## o o 

## o o o 

## o o 

## o o o o 

## o o 5 

## o o 4 

### o 9 

### o 

## o 

## o o o o o o 

## o o o o 

## o 120 2 

### o 

## o o o 122 

### o 

## o 

## o o o 

## o o o 

## o 1 

## o

o o o 34 

## o 

## o 37Table 1.4: Concentrations ciforganisms in the liquid waste sampled in the dry-dock and haul-out operations at various stages oftreatment. All concentrations are given as abundance 10 L- 1(± s.e.) except filamentous algae, for which a ranks scale ofabundance (0-5) was used.

" • t**~~** • "1 , "**~,** .' 1',,_',

. '
,• ,}.1 • .'1. t - "**~**

., I l,"

... _', .'

. "'_,' I:,: ::.. ,:' • '

.. ;., ; ... , ',('**~** \ -J**:.~** "**~.'** f' , . .**~** , q f ,,'
- LytteIton Port ;.' . Cleaningrunoff

. ; " t.**~'I"** , Settlement tanks

.Tankdischa'rge

,Cleaningrunoff
Settlement tanks I , '. ",\ 

### .. Tank discharge Westpark Marina Cleaningrunoff
Settlement tanks
Tauranga Marina Cleaningrunoff
Settlementtanks
Tank discharge VI Cl) "C o (;l E Cl) Z 5343.2 (1883) 521.7 (503.8) 1.8 (1.8) 36727.5 (6357)

9.9 (9.9)



### o
1595.3 (442.5)

106.7 (50.9) 8628.3 (34.6) 6466.1 (2383)

34.8 (16.8) 1275.2 (363.4) 371.3 (336.7) 

## o

873.3 (629.3) 

### o
o

42.8 (42.8)**155.~** (89.5) 1474.8 (476.1)

31.9 (31.9) 29.8 (13.4) 43.2 (43.2)



### o 

## o

287.5 (103.5)

7.4 (7.4)



### o


## o
12.1 ( 11.5) 87.7 (41.0) 426.1 (146.1) 

### o 8.2 (7.1)



### o


## o
o
o o.


## o
o

I (I)



## o
o 

## o o 

## o
o o
o


## o
o

o 

## o
56.1 (31.6) 6.2 (6.2)



### o 

## o

78.0 (77.9)



## o o


## o
o

56.5 (40.0)



## o
o 1368 (499.2) 

### o 

## o

1938.7 (555.4) 

## o o

1034.1 (351.2)

52.1 (30.1) 926.8 (519.9) 2151.5 (1016)

23.2 (4.6) VI E o (;l (5 769.7 (375.4) 

### o
20.4 ( 11.7)



## o o o

137.0 (137.0)

11.5 (I 1.5)



### o 

## o
o 119.5 (88.1)



### o 

## o

1539.7 (662.7) 6.6 (6.6) 

## o
5015.9 (3035.6) 

## o

419.6 (133.1) 4.8 (0.1)

1.0 (0) 0.8 (0.2) 4.6 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2)

5 (0) '4.3 (0.3) 3.6 (0.2) 2119.4 3.0 (1294.8) (0.8) 

### o 1.3 (0.4) VI**~** o 0.. CJ) 258.3 (205.1) 252.9 (252.9) 

## o
o o o

o 

## o

174.5 (98.5)



## o
o 295.4 (105.5)

89.5 (72.8)

5.1 (3.2) 72.2 (47.4)

11.2 (I 1.2)

1.2 (1.2) 134.9 (889.4)

38.8 (9.6) 252.7 (76.7) 834.4 (327.7) 

### o- - .. ,

-

## - Table 1.5: Presence ('+') ofvisible movement (examined by microscope) and mitochondria (vital staining with Janus Green) in the liquid samples taken at various stages oftreatment in the operations visited. It 

### was not possible to sample run-offfrom water blasting for some of the vessels whose cleaning was attended (Lyttelton: Hebe; 

### Orams Marine: Macushla; 

### WestparkMarina: Boat 2; Tauranga: Chris Robertson).

Lyttelton Port Cleaningrunoff A. Slobodnich Godley Settlementtanks Tankdischarge Orams Marine Cleaningrunoff Chancellor Lady Crossley Settlementtanks Tankdischarge Westpark Marina Cleaningrunoff Boat I Bahia Settlementtanks Tauranga Marina Cleaningrunoff Ma Cherie Boat3 Boat4 Settlement tanks Tankdischarge Movement Mitochondria present
+ +

+ + + +

+ +

+ +

+ + + +

., • '.**~** r ,',: 1

.. -'
- - ',-
- .-.**,~** !: "



### Table 1.6:'Salinitytolerances ofsome well-knownNIS.

" , 

# .'**Sp~cies** Ficopomallls enigmaticus (formerly Mercierella enigmatica); serpulid polychaete Hydroides elegans; serpulid**polychae~e Cras~f!slrea** gigas, Pacific oyster**I!1I~lIla**neritina;**ere~t** bryozoan

l , ,", " ,Balanusamphitrile; acorn barnacle .!';. ,,1 I '. I ,.>;•.. !**~' ~**  :! " ':,**~**t**~"** . :**!:~** : ,.:"



# < 'r,,;"F<.,·:·,,:';,' :', ;.,. , '. '. ; j
- ":' )"**~**(**~ ~**  ..:. ' 

## " " ,,:,"., ':{'- < Botlylloidesleachi; colonial'

. ascidian .'**~** . '

/,"1 I NZ distribution (Cranfield et al. 1998) Whangarei and Waitemata Harbours, Hawkes Bay
Waitemata and Lyttelton Harbours
NorthernNZ harbours, Waikanae River, Tasman Bay, Pelorus Sound
All harbours except Onehunga, Gisborne and Oamaru.

Waitemata Harbour Salinitytolerance Can live and grow at 0-0.5 ppt. for up to 80 d. No survival and growth at 21 ppt.
LDso at< 4 h in 5 ppt., 100 % mortality after 9.5 h. Lowest salinity range 15-20 ppt. LDso at 3 ppt., can survive up to 55 ppt. However, published tolerances vary and suggest2-35 ppt., 4-35 ppt. and 5-56 ppt. Optimum at> 30 ppt.; survival and maturation in > 20 ppt. Short exposure to freshwater causes severe damage; salinities < 14 ppt. can be fatal to colonies. Larvae can develop in 10-30 ppt. (ormore) but developmental period longer at low salinities. At 10 ppt. there is 99 % larval mortality. Larval survival dependent on the speed ofthe osmoshock as much as on the magnitude ofdrop in salinity. Growth and survival in a minimum of24 ppt. if temperatures> 18°C. Maximum tolerance44 ppt. Source Hill (1967); Straughan (I972)
Mak & Huang (1982)
NIMPIS (2002a) and references therein
Matawari (1951); Kitamura & Hirayama (1985)

Anii etal. (1995) Cawthorne (1978)

NIMPIS (2002b) Brunetti et al. (I980)

" ",. 'I. "

# ::;0!,/[{;H:~:1\**,rrr~;".nal~da;** k;p

.

# r{e~~~~~~t~~I~:~;d:o~e~~~~~~;'~I;:~~~~

# t;;_**~f~aF;i11~~)ett** (1989)

i' ,:",: ' •**",..:"~ ,r'~,:,**  Sabellaspallanzanfi; sabellid ' .Notrecorded in NZ. Tolerates salinities of26

- 38 ppt. Dies after2-12 Currie et al. (2000)

# ':~,

# h"**'~.:~i':(\. ':'~:J~**  

# ... ' p.'

# O_I_rc~~ .. a ...

# ~t_e_"'________________________ h_o_u_rs_ex_p_o_su_r_e_to_fr_e_sh_w_a_te_r_.

________ N_I_M_P_I_S_(_20_0_2_d_)

____ _

• (**~** " .'('**~'** ;'. .:: " Cl • 

### ,

## . ; 

### .

### Table 2.1. Summaryofsystems currently used inNZfor the collection, treatment and disposal ofwastes generated from vessel hull-cleaning

.operations [Sources: McClary andNelligan (2001), (ANZECC 2000), NZ Diving and Salvage Ltd (2002)]. 

### Site tY(>e Cleaningmethod Collection method Treatmentmethod Solids disposal Liquid disposal ]n water Divers using scrubbers No collection

- material none Sea Sea

, , falls to the sea-floor ]n water Divers using**hy~raulic** Material collected by Filtration via polypropylene Landfill orother solid Sea

, , cutterhead and vacuum vacuum head and pumped waste facilty , ' filter bags (50-100**~m** pore) " 

### ,,' .' hose to treatment s}"stem .,' In**~ater',** Small vessels moored in No collection

- material Chemical herbicides and/or Sea Sea " ',;**(,.'~** , , bags with herbicides or falls to the sea-floor biocides r 

## ., biocides added within bag qutofwaterbelow high tide Scraping orscrubbing Some collection ofsolids none Some solids may be Sea (tidal grids, careeningbays) but no containment disposed to landfill but**~** : " t • remainderreclaimed by

. '.r.

. ' "**~** rising tide ,

### .. Out**of~ater** above high tide Water-blasting, scraping Liquid and solid material Settlingtanks, either single Landfill orother solid Sea**(~rY-docks;** travel lifts, orsanding collected in a contained compartment orbaffled with waste facilty (and in some cases synchro lifts orslipways)' hard-stand area several compartments in series recycled to water-

, , : blasting) ,**~** : ; Outofwater above high tide Water-blasting, scraping Liquid and solid material Settlingtanks with some Landfill orother solid Sea (dry-docks, travel lifts, orsanding collected in a contained chemical enhancement of waste facilty (and in some cases synchro lifts orslipways) hard-stand area separation process (e.g., recycled to water-
" flocculants such as Magnaj/oc blasting) and alum for pH correction) Outofwaterabove high tide Water-blasting, scraping Liquid and solid material Settling tanks followed by Landfill orothersolid Sea (dry-docks, travel lifts, orsanding collected in a contained sand filter and/or sand/peat waste facilty (and in some cases**s~nchro** lif1:s orslipways) hard-stand area polishing filter recycled to waterblasting) OutC?fwater above high tide Water-blasting, scraping Liquid and solid material Equalizingtank, clarifier, sand Landfill orother solid To community waste- (dry-docks, travel lifts, orsanding collected in a contained filter, final filters (I**~m)** waste facilty watertreatmentplant synchro lifts orslipways) hard-stand area1::"', : ;" •• ;,-



### .. • " 1" A:**:!~,.:."**

t '. 'I :' ' <

,'; , :',' ,':: ::::\: Table2.2. Summaryofmeasured performance ofexistingtreatment systems

.• :.- . i**_~: ~,** 

.**~,~** ,,; ,'"

'"

. :.' .') .. ,;:,:. ," 

### ..
.! Removaland 

### treatmentmethod, Removal offouling from**ve~sel** hulls (Treatmen't. Stage 11)**~ollection** and treatment ofliquid fouling waste in settlementtanks (Treatm'ent Stage 21)

Physical screeningand filtration ofsettlement tank effluent
J.. (Treat,?ent Stage 3 1)

. r, )';**~** '1 I!", ::**~** :,,'**~:,** '

.. ',**,~'~.,** J.::'

r**~. ~**  , ,-'.' 

### :i.:**~** ,; .Description Hull-fouling material is physically disrupted by cleaningremoval processes (e.g., scraping, water blasting, brushingetc) but is not further treated in any way. Three types were assessed including: • in-watercleaning • dry-dock operations • haul-out facilities Liquid fouling waste is collected in settlementtanks where marine**organi~ms** are held in fresh water and particulates are separated from liquid by settling.

Primarytreated effluent from settlementtanks is subsequently passed through a sand-filter Performance conclusions Significantproportions ofmarine organisms sampled were in a viable state, as follows: • in-water (72% viable) • dry-dock (43% viable) • haul-out (16% viable) Overall risk to biosecurity is more than minor. Treatmentremoved >99% of animals, larvae and unicellular organisms. Of the <1% thatpassed through treatment, very few were viable. Filamentous algae were abundant posttreatment but were probably of terrestrial origin. Some very low-salinity-tolerant organisms could potentially survive. Overall risk to biosecurity is low. No marine animals, larvae, eggs, spores orunicellular organisms were found post-treatment. Some filamentous algae were found but were likely to be freshwater species from other sources. Overall risk to biosecurity is negligible.
: 

# ':**~:i.,**

# '.**n;;·:~'; .~** 

# «:: -:**,S~~the** schematiC diagram ofvarious stages oftreatment system 111 Figure 1.1. 

# ':I';'o'(i;:,.•> 'I);

# :/r..•. . '.r**~** , .;;, 1 , " '."1.,: ";- !"

. . '

. ... ,1: '

.

_, - "**~'I** ,: ;':

. ';,' " i• 1',

.. '

:.
, .. '

.. ,

•**~..** 1 1.- 1" • Table 2.3. Treatment technologies that could potentiallybe used for the treatment ofwastes generated from vessel hull-cleaning. Two types oftreatment method are listed; A) Suspendedparticle removal technologies commonlyused for stormwater (Sources: ARC 2003; USEPA 1993) B) Ballast watertreatmenttechnologies (Sources: Rigby and Taylor2001) 

### Treatment Costconsiderations Performance Advantages Disadvantages method A - SUSPENDED-PARTICLE REMOVALTECHNOLOGIES COMMONLY USED FOR STORMWATER .' Holding (settling) tanks 

## - Initial capital cost 

### - Remove most viable


### - Relatively cheap 

## - Requires moderate storage depends on type. A simple organisms

. installation and on-going capacity to hold influent system could cost around



### - 50-75% oftotal suspended operation costs discharge for suitable retention NZ$5

- 10,000. solids (TSS) removed


### - Potentially high removal period



## - Ongoingmaintenance oforganisms when combined

costs low but include with fresh water storage removal ofaccumulated Operationally & material from bottom. 

## - technologically simple

" Likelyto remove other , 

### - ,- contaminants (e.g., oils, fine I', .. 

## :j ',1,- .' 'I' , particulates [paint flakes] and '. r·**~** • .. some soluble contaminants)

. If'; :. ' .**~!.'** ! i ' .Sand filters or 

## - , Initial capital 

## - Effective at removing


### - Relatively cheap on- 

## - Requires some pre- 'contained bed filters installation cost is viable organisms. goingoperation costs treatment (e.g., primary

, , with otherbed-media '

.relatively high. Capable ofremoving Potentially high settling) with reasonable



## - - .. storage retention volume



### - Ongoing maintenance particles down to the 60Ilm reliability oforganism control because waterpassage rate 

# . , . costs include removal and 'particle standard'

. repiaceinent offouled sand 

## - Operationally and through sand filter is slow.

.. layers

. 

## - Capable ofremoving technologically fairly simple between 75% (Hynds Pipe



## - Likely to remove a high

. , t ,f, -"**~** Requires some pre- Systems Ltd) and 89% proportion ofother treatmentto remove gross (Remedial Solutions Inc.) of contaminants in addition to solids and reduce clogging. TSS. marine organisms (e.g., oils,

## - Likelyto remove some fine particulates [paint flakes] proportion ofsoluble and some soluble

" , contaminants. contaminantremoval).

';. " I Infiltration trenches or 

### - Initial capital 

## - Similarto sand filters.


### - High removal of


### - Requires large area of basins installation cost high May be no need for organisms flat land.



### -



## - ' Requires a large flat liquid discharge to sea ifthe 

## - Operationally and

.- area. infiltration area is large technologically simple : enough, porous enough and if : 

## - Ongoing 

## - Likely to remove a ; " evaporation rates are
, ' ' maintenance costs include favourable. high proportion ofother

, 'removal and replacement of contaminants (e.g., oils, fine upper layers oftrench beds particulates [paint flakes] and orbasins. some soluble contaminants.



## - Requires some pre-

" ' 

### , treatment (e.g. primary
I, " ,settling) to remove gross ! solids 

# . Vegetative swales, 

## - Initial capital 

## - Potentially the entire 

## - High removal of 

## - Requires large area of filter strips,**pond~** or installation cost is high discharge can be assimilated organisms flat land preferablyat lower wetIands (vegetation swales orfilter withoutthe need for any Operationally and level than hull-cleaning work strips) to veryhigh liquid discharge to sea ifthe 

## - technologically simple area. (constructed ponds or vegetated area or



### - Can require high on- wetlands). pondlwetland area is large 

## - Likely to remove a going vegetation maintenance Ongoingcosts include enough, porous enough and if high proportion ofother depending on design. maintenance ofvegetation evaporation rates are contaminants (e.g., oils, fine favourable particulates [paint flakes] and some soluble contaminants. Oil and grit separators 

### - Installation costs 

## - Not a suitable 'stand 

## - Reliable targeted


### - Not an effective 'standmoderate (-NZ$5000) alone' treatment for hull- method ofremoving alone' treatment system



## - Ongoing cleaning waste. They would hydrocarbon contaminants. be a useful addition to a maintenance costs include 

## - Relatively cheap onremoval ofaccumulated oil treatment process to remove goingoperation costs hydrocarbon contamination.**an~** grit.



## - Operationally and technologically simple Coarse contaminant 

## - Initial capital


### - Removes coarse 

### - Requires only small


### - Requires wastewater

-', .'

! •• ("

'-. 'I', • • ., 'of

..**~** , , l ;-,,: 

## . "

, " ,"'" .:; I
- " .,:"**J"~**-**,~-;;- ~** **~**

- , ,

-- 

### . '-,

: I,: # ,,-... : ;', ,1-, ',' :,'

, -.' "**~** :**~** ,**~** .'

, .

:,'

- I- , i,**~** -, '-'

traps relying on installation cost is high. cylindrical circular Likelyto be -NZ$l0,000

- flow separation (swirl $30,000. concentrators)

Absorbant booms or 

### - Capital cost very 

## - pillows low

- around NZ$250 per pillow orsmall boom

B - BALLAST WATER TREATMENTTECHNOLOGIES Fresh waterexposure 

## - Fresh water is 

## - cheaply available.



### - Estimated costof

between NZ$0.07 perm3to 

### - NZ$1.37 perm3 depending on the use ofrecycled process water orpotable fresh waterl

Heat exposure 

## - Costs variable 

## - dependingon the

:

## . availability ofwaste-heat

- 

### .- sources

, ' 

### - Estimated cost of


### -

. ". NZ$0.02 perm3 to NZ$

.... ' 

## . ;, 0.05 perm3 for ballasttank

,**~** I , applications where waste ,- heat is available from ship 1 enginesl

. 

### ...

,- - Self-cleaning**~creen** 

### - Initial capital cost is


### - filtration : likelyto be relatively high

, ',- .: , -**~**.

- "

, I material only. Unlikely to area and sited belowground stream to be flowing (Le., provide reliable performance Relatively cheap on- through pipe system) for small particle sizes. Useful 

### - onlyas primary treatment going operation costs 

### - Notan effective 'standpriorto othermethod such as 

## - Operationally and alone' treatment system sand filtration technologically simple Very effective at 

## - Relatively cheap on- 

## - Only really suitable for removing oil, particularly going operation costs removing surface oil surface floating oil that has



## - Operationally and


### - Not an effective 'standnot yet been emulsified by turbulence technologically simple alone' treatment system

Shown to be effective 

## - Cheap on-going 

## - Requires.construction of at retention times>2 weeks operation costs a large storage capacity (and (this report).



## - High reliability of therefore potentially high initial "Canprovide a velY organism control capital costs) to achieve consistent minimum retention effectivemeans of organism



## - Discharge offresh periods, particularly ifrainfall controf' (Rigby and Taylor, water is potentially contributions are large. 2001). environmentally friendly, provided solids are removed Likely to be effective 

## - Rapid treatment 

## - Energy inefficient with attemperatures in the vicinity requiring only small retention high on-goingoperation costs of35-45°C for a few hours times and therefore small unless an effective waste-heat (Rigby et al., 2001). storage capacities. source is available. "Canprovide a very 

## - High reliability of effective andenvironmentally organism control attractive option" (Rigby and



## - Discharge ofcooled Taylor, 200I). treated water is potentially environmentally friendly, provided solids are removed effective treatment 

### - Potentially rapid


### - Mechanically complex technology for removing treatment requiring only requiring skilled development(NZ$0.14 permJ to marine organisms from ballast small retention times and and testing during NZ$O.37 perm3 for ballast water. Turbidity and particle therefore small storage implementation as well as likely tank applications) I. size distribution affect capacities. high on-going maintenance.



## - On-going performance and existing



## - Potentially high "off-the-shelf'technologies maintenance is likely to may not perform efficiently removal oforganisms require skilled operators with seawater. and relatively high costs. Hydrocyclones or 

## - High initial capital


### - Effective at removing


### - Rapid treatment 

## - Mechanically complex mechanical centrifugal cost (NZ$0.13**~er** m3 to particulates from liquid but requiring only small retention requiring skilled development particle separators NZ$0.50 perm for ballast posttreatment (e.g. UV times and therefore small and testing during tank applications) 1 radiation normally required) storage capacities. implementation as well as likely

, 

### - On-going for controllingorganisms high on-going maintenance. maintenance is likely to (Sutherland etal., 200I).



## - Likely to require further

" I, require skilled operators post-treatment (e.g., biocides, and relatively high costs. UV).

, , Ghemical**biocide~** 

### - Relatively low


### - May be effective, but 

## - Potentially rapid


### - Biocide residues .'

, initial capital cost. onlycopperion, hypochlorite treatment requiring only discharged to environment -:**~.** :-**~,.:-** " (includes hydrogen, (NZ$0.27 perm3 to and glutaraldehyde are small retention times and requiring careful assessment**pero~ide,** chlorine' ;' \,' NZ$0.46 perm3 for ballast "currently available" therefore small storage and management ofeffects.

.(hypochlorite); chlorine' tank applications) 1 (McCracken, 200I). capacities.



### - Relatively high on-going dioxide, ozone, . , ' 'glutaraldehyde and 

## - On-going cost is 

## - Peraclean® Ocean (a 

## - Potentially high cost ofbiocide. copper/silver ion' likelyto be relatively high formulation based on peroxy removal oforganisms but variable dependingon acetic acid) is very effective systems) the chemical used. (lOO% mortality with range of 

## - Operationally and

, technologically simple ; 

## .. ' test organisms) and breaks**~** ,; " l " down rapidly in seawater \ ' ' , , , (Fuchs etaf200I).

,



### - SEAKLEEN® (a natural organic oxidant) is also effective on broad range oforganisms and breaks down quickly in the environment (cost = US$0.20/metric tonne treated water). (Wright and Dawson 200I)"," >. .

, "

'

.. ,I '.: ,**~**

## . Ultra violet (UV) irradiation


### - Initial capital cost is high 

## - "Commonly currently used 

## - Potentially rapid 

## - Questionable

i' '. ; (NZ$0.18 perm3 to NZ$0.60 in wastewater treatment; treatment removal of

, , perm3 for ballasttank promising, butturbiditymuslbe organisms. ; 

## - Environmentally applications)l. On-going removed first" (McCracken, friendly discharge (no


### - Requires maintenance is likely to require 2001). contaminants) considerable pre-

, " skilled operators and relatively



### - Preliminary tests ofUV on treatmentto remove high costs. : : seawater are not encouraging even turbidity

" 

### - Considerable pre- at high UV doses. Turbidity is a (potentially

" :f ; ,- " treatment required to reduce problem. UV unlikely to be expensive). :

.. effluent turbidity for UV to be effective against large zooplankton " Mechanically**,~:**-**~** effective. This is also (>35**~lm)** Waite et al. 2001). 

## - I complex requiring expensive. skilled development

'. and testing as well as high on-going maintenance. Rigby and Taylor (200I) analysed the relative cost-effectiveness (in Australian dollars) ofseveral treatment options for treating ship ballast-water. Note that their analysis assumes that wastewater is already contained in vessel ballast tanks, and therefore no consideration is made for the capital costs ofbuilding hardstand containment and collection areas, as would be required for hull-cleaning operations. Therefore Rigby and Taylor's (2001) cost estimates are broadly indicative ofthe relative co'st differences between options, but should not be treated as reliable estimates ofcosts to implementthe options athull-cleaning sites.
2 The USEPA fv1anagement Measure for Marinas and Recreational Boating (USBPA 1993) gives cost estimates in $US (I993) for a range oftechnologies on a

'volume'treated' or 'catchment area' basis.

,; ,Treatment stage 1

Cleaning of vessel by water blasting or manual scraping Liquid waste

Solid waste Treatment stage 2 Multi-chamber settlementtank, chambers separated by weirs

# -------~-----~------- Liquids ParIIc:uIatea

Disposal to landfill Overflow Treatment stage 3

Discharge Filtration ----:--. into sea

No filtration

Figure 1.1 : Treatment methods for solid and liquid fouling material in the facilities visited. Difterences in treatment methods among facilities are limited to treatment stage 3 (filtration: Orams Marine and Tauranga Marina; no filtration: Lyttelton dry-dock and Westpark Marina).(a) Structural damage



### -----**~** 

### 100 ui +I '-' '"0 Q) 

### 75 bO Cl 

# a Cl '"0 c: 

### 50 ;j Ul 

# a en 

# ·s 25 Cl bO



### .... 0**~** 

### 0
(b) Survival


### 100

75
50
25



# o Dry-dock Haul-out In-water

Figure 1.2: Damage and survival that occurred in organisms removed from vessel hulls in the dry-dock, haul-out and in-water cleaning operations visited. Blackoars: soft-bodied taxa (ascidians, hydroids, sabellid and errantpolychaetes, sponges, motile molluscs, flatworms, nemertean worms, anemones); greybars: hard-bodied taxa (barnacles;bivalves, bryozoans, serpulid and spirorbidpolychaetes, motile crustaceans).

--: .

-. -.**,~::<{.**100 

### 75 50 25



## o

100 

### 75 50**~** 

### 25 Cl) 

### .:!t 0 (a) Total organisms

N=468 N=5151 (c) Barnacles



## E N=209 N=2035 Cl) ·2 ro (e) Bryozoans

### ~ 100 

### 75 50 25**O~-.l....--'-...-l-L--.L....,~**

100



### 75 50 25 N=28 (g) Hydroids N=635 N=4615

N=254

N=413**O~-~L-----~----** N=9 Dry-
. dock N/a Haul-

. -'out N/a### Inwater (b) Total organisms (excl. 100 tubiculous polychaetes) 

### 75 50 25



## o

100 

### 75 50 25



## o

100 

### 75 50 25 N=464 N=3157 (d) Bivalves

N=174 N=149 (t) Ascidians



## o**-I---'---'-~** N=21 N=234 N=1329

N=45

N=359 (h) Tubiculous polychaetes 100 

### 75 50 25**O-l-----~** N=4Orydock N=1994Haulout. N=3286 

### In-
. water 

### Figure_I.3: Viability of broadtaxonomic groups following theirremoval from vessel hulls in dry-dock, haul-out and m-water cleaning operations. Blackbars: viable; grey bars: non-viable.

. .. ,**~ ~** **~,** -,

..
.., ..**~.** 

### 100 75 

### 50 25



# o

,-,. 100 a) 

### en**~** 

### 75 en

### ~ 

### 50 '2 Cl:! I:!l 

### 25 o 

# o

100 75 

### 50 25 (i) Errant polychaetes

N=ll N=19 N=37 (k) Motile crustaceans

N=2 N=66 N=39 (m) Flatworrns & nemerteans**O-l----~---~** N/aOrydock N/aHaulout N=122

### Inwater 

### 100 75 

### 50 25 U) Sponges



# o-I--'''--l-,.- N=lO N=15 (1) Motile molluscs 

### 100 75 

### 50 25**O-l-----~------~-**


### 100 75 

### 50 25 N/a (n) Anemones**O+-----~-** N/aOrydock N/a

N=3Haulout N=16

N=lO

N=34



### Inwater



### Figure 1.3 

### (continued): Viability ofbroadtaxonomic groups following theirremoval from vessel hulls indry-dock,haul-out-and in-watercleaningoperations. Blackbars: viable; grey. bars: non-viable.

'< .0;: - 

### --**,.~** -.**~** . . .

, • ",-,-+" "

.- '.
-**~** 

### .**~~**.. "'. .**,,~** • _ -.. : _ , • , J. ' • '. ,. • "', "i. '-', ';. '". ;-, - -**~ _'~**  •**~**

_ -, •
_ J _,:. ,';:' _. -- • 

### : ::-:-::-C,_

.**-~.~' ~** 

### ..,,:.'**"::";.:'.:~'~'j**

### ",':"::'**~;f;:** "

....**,~.** - ,-,**~'-.** .

## .~:~.:-~,

# :":,**~~:·:::;-c.~,~:~t~:}::~~~~;_:'**

# .-: _.- ..'Ca) Lyttelton dry-dock

;--.. 

### 10000 <Ii ui -H '-" 

### 1000 ;--..**~** 0 

### 100 v u 

### 10 t::**~** "'0 t:: ::::I 1 ..c**~** '-" OJ) 0 

### 0.1 -l Cb) Westpark Marina

;--.. 

### 10000**~** Cl) -H '-" ;--.. 

### 1000**~** 0 v 

### 100 u t::**~** "'0 t:: 

### 10 ::::I ..0**~** '-" OJ) 0 -l Cc) Tauranga marina

;--..**~ ~**  

### 100000 Cl) -H '-" 

### 10000 ;--..**~** 0 

### 1000 v u t:: 

### 100**~** "'0 t:: ::::I 

### 10 ..0**~** '-" OJ) 0 -l Animals Propagules

. Unicellular

.organisms 

### Figure..1.4: (a)

- (d) Concentrations (abundance 10 L'lyofanimals, propagules (larvae, spores and eggs).andunicellular organisms in liquid samplestaken at various stages oftreatment. (e) Average rank ofabundance (1- 5) offilamentous algae. Blackbars: waterblast run-off;**greyb~:** first chamberofsettlementtanks;'white bars: effluent discharged (N.B, this includesJiquid from the final chamber ofsettlementtanks (Tauranga);.unfiltered (Lyttelton) andfiltered (Orams Marine) discharge. Percentages above the barsrepresent thereduction in ab1..Uldaz.aCe-relative.to concentrations in the.water blast.run-ofLForexample, inthe effluent discharged from the Lyttelton dry-dock, the abundance ofanimals is 99.7 % lowerthan'their abundance inthe waterblastrun-off..·,,·," :: '

M "**,;_,v,,~,~**':"
>. __ .....: •• _' ••**~:'** _.' "I. , •

, ..**-~** ..**~.~**..:'....:;:'::...**:··~-:··;·:'I"** ,., .. ' ., 

### -. . ,'-

## :.:

-.**.::-~:** .. . - 

## .'

# :.~c**~;** .•... , ...

# ;i./·-::: 

# t**~(,~ ~...** 

# _ ·::.cf··;·

.

# .':,.~ .

.**~;** ..' '.: . .' .' ... 

### -

.**~** . "....**~**

.**'~.'**...

...
'-- ',' (d) Orams Marine

,.-... 10000 aj ui -H 1000 '-' ,.-...**~** 0 100**~** u 10 s:: C'j -0 s:: '#.. ::J .D C'j 8 '-' OJ) "";' 0 0.1 -l Animals Propagules Unicellular organisms (e) Filamentous algae (rank scale ofabundance)
,.-... aj ui 

### -:!t**~** o ..::.:: s:: 

## e**~** u s:: C'j -0 s:: ::J 5 4 3 2 

# :< 0 '#.. 0 '#.

,

Lyttelton Westpark Tauranga Orams dry-dock Marina Marina Marine

Figure 1.4 (continued): (a)

- (d) Concentrations (abundance 10 Cl)ofanimals, propagules (larvae, spores and eggs) and unicellular organisms in liquid samples taken at various stages oftreatment. (e) Average rank ofabundance (1- 5) offilamentous algae. Blackbars: water blast run-off; greybars: first chamber ofsettlementtanks; white bars: effluent discharged (N.B, this includes liquid from the final chamberofsettlement tanks (Tauranga), unfiltered (Lyttelton) and filtered (Orams Marine) discharge. Percentages above the bars represent the reductionin abundance relative to concentrations in the water blastrun-off. Forexample, in the effluent discharged from the Lyttelton dry-dock, the abundance ofanimals is 99.7 % lower than their abundance in the water blastrun-off

.

.....-- ".**-~**

-.-.-- " :'**~'** - "

-. :le**.~** " ,., '.

• •**.~" I_~~**  ::::11 ,;.,:

..**~ ~** **~ "'~.",.:-**  -;
',- l.**~.** . "Plate 1.1: The abundance off ouling organisms on the ship hulls examined varied widely. L

eft: abundant and diverse assemblage on the hull ofthe 

### lv [ acushla sampled in Auckland

. Right: a clean and ullfouled part ofthe 

### H ebe's hull sampled ill L yttelton. Photo: O. Floerl, 

### NIWAPlate 1.2: Mechanical damage from water blasting and trampling by cl eaning staf f in drydock and haul-out operations resulted in damage or mortality ofa high percentage of organisms examined

. I n some cases, f ouling organisms were crushed and ground nearly beyond recognition. Phot o: C. Middlet on, NIWA

.Plate 1.3: The seachests oftheAlexanderSlobodchikov, cleaned in the Lyttelton dry

-dock, contained large clumps ofgreenshell mussels (Pema sp.). Viabl e errant polychaetes and motile crustaceans and molluscs were common within these clumps. This picture was taken after approximately 90 % ofthe mussels had already been removed from the sea chest. Photo: O. Floerl, NIWA.Plate 1.4: Cleaning ofthe harbour tug Godley in the Lyttelton dry-dock by water blasting. The pressure ofthe cleaningjet removed f ouling organisms and the top layer of the underlying antif ouling paint, r esulting in red run-off to the settling tanks. Photo: O

. Floerl, NlWA.Appendix

.":'
';**~;** .

I,"_-=:".

, ,"

## ~ 

# ':':**'~,'i"::,>,,** 

# "

"
, ,-
, .**~.** ,

, t.
_**~** '.,



### .TableA1: Guidelines used byfield staffto assess viability offouling biotaremovedfrom vessel hulls.

1. SESSILETAXA BarnaCles

Bivalves

Encrusting bryozoans

Frect bryozoans

--
, '

, ".-1 '," ;'_.1:"'.:, " "

":",; '.' , Indicators for live and viable individuals/colonies
Structure: All shell plates present and intact, opercularplates present (acorn barnacles only

- gooseneck barnacles have no opercular plates) Feeding/movement: Feeding structures (cirri) protrude out ofthe test and perform sweeping feeding movements. OR opercular shells closed by muscular action. Structure: Both shells present and intact. Feeding/movement: Shells may be locked by muscular action (i.e. this bivalve**live~).** Shells may also be open (feeding), exposing mantle tissue and siphons (or**gap~** in mantle), butwill close when poked (reacti0!1) Structure: Colony/fragment contains several intactzooids (check for animal inside against light). Feeding/movement: Filte'ring apparatus (Iophophore) protrude througJ1 opening in zooid. Structure: Colony/fragment contains several intactzooids (check for animal inside against light). Feeding/movement: Filtering apparatus (lophophore) protrude through openingin zooid. Indicators for non-viability ofindividuals/colonies
Structure: Shel\/opercularplates and/orfeeding structures (cirri) broken ormissing. Feeding/movement: Feeding structures visible but motionless and slackand/orno reaction when poked.

Structure: One shell missing oronelboth shells cracked or fragmented. Feeding/movement: Shells open butno reaction to touch.

Structure: All zooids damaged/smashed, no softtissues visible. And/or: all colonies dried out, loss ofall moisture. And/or loss of pigmentation. Feeding/movement: Zooids' softtissues and/or feeding structures may be visible but no movement orreaction to touch. Structure: All zooids damaged/smashed, no softtissues visible. And/or: all colonies dried out, loss ofall moisture. Feeding/movement: Feeding structures may be visible but no movement orreaction to touch. 

### :',;:L,:.;""; ;,\:, Colonial ascidians Structure: Colony/fragment in reasonable 'shape', moistto the touch Structure: Shredded orcrushed so that badly damaged. No polyps



# . ,>,.,

# :}~;;\' :',' ·." '.

.

# ..~~~~!~~~{~;~;t:~::H:;n~~**~ii:;;:{;i~~rl:~!;e ~~;~~~~~£%~~.~~~i~~7;'~J~::** **~o~aS~l~~~::~:h~SSU"**

# on
,; ;"

.. ',: :,.: .:":;**i<,;~ohtl;lry** ascldmns Structure: Test (body) intact, no holes orgashes, not crushed flat or Structure: Test badly damaged, crushed or deformed. Branchial

., "i, .', ','\-,

.. ,'':'' , severely deformed. Moist, not dried. basketexposed and/or damaged, guts hanging out. And/orcolony 

# ,**t:~"/**

# '

..**J;)'J:,':~;,':**:'t"

# r**'.~:.':'**

# . ',', Feeding/movement: Inhalant and/or exhalant siphons open butclose dried out, loss ofall moisture.

,:4 :

...

{'**~,;**__.. ____.. ________**·_\_vh_e_n_p~oMk_e_d_(~r_ea_c_t_io_n.).** _____________________________________**F_ee_d_i_ng/~m_oMv_e_n_le_n_tM:.S~ip_h_o_n_s_o.p_en** __**b_u_t_no~re_a_c_ti_o_n_t_o_to_u.c_h_.**______ ___ ," 

### .'

. , 

### """ j"

,


### ..**~**

" , 00 ,

Co {.

0' Hydroid?

Tubiculous**p~lychaetes**

; Sponges

o (assessmentof

o viability very difficult qr impossible)

o Molluscs

(gastropods, sea slugs, chitons) Seastars I brittlestars Amphipodsl Ispopods Indicators for live and viable individuals/colonies Structure: Bodyreasonably intact, feeding polyps (often at distal ends ofbraches) present. Feeding/movement: Feedingtentacles exposed. Structure: Intact (body within tube), not crushed, no holes orgashes. Feeding/movement: Worm retracts into tube when poked (reaction), and/orfeeding structures (tentacularcrown) visible and moving. Structure: Fragments retain natural colour, firm texture (don'tfall apart). Sponges retain a "fleshyItranslucent I shiny" appearance. Look for "translucent" tissue between fibres Feeding/movement: Impossible to observe.

Structure: Contain pigment and have natural colour. Dryness often

. not a g90d indicator as some species are intertidal. Look out for and

keep (preserve) reproductive structures (anything like little pocks or**compartment~** orother unusual external structures). Feeding/movement: nla

Visible movementI reaction. Eyes/sensory organs in head region moving. (missing limbs no problem unless all are gone...). Carapace intact. Body intact (gastropod snails: shell present), reaction to touch.

Basal disc orparts ofit present (can regenerate from that), body (or whatever's present) has natural shape, notcrushed. Visible movementIreaction, especially feeding limbs will beat if submerged and alive. Missing limbs no problem unless all are gone. Carapace intact. Indicators for non-viability ofindividuals/colonies Structure: All polyps damaged/smashed. And/orcolony dried out, loss ofall moisture. Feeding/movement: Feeding structures may be visible but no movement orreaction to touch. Structure: Tube missing, loss oftentacularcrown, body badly crushed orlacerated. And/ordried out, loss ofall moisture. Feeding/movement: Feeding structures may be visible but no movement orreaction to touch

.

. Structure: Colony/fragment faded and bleached, falling apart. Sponge

a mass ofgolden fibres I hair-like structures without "translucent fleshy tissue" between the fibres. And/orcolony dried out, loss ofall moisture. Usually no chance for survival ifremoved from water for more than 3 hours. Feeding/movement: Impossible to observe. Structure: Badlycrushed, fragmented, orfaded (loss ofpigments). Feeding/movement: nla

All limbs orboth pincers missing. Carapace damaged (e.g. large holes orparts missing). No movement/ reaction to touch. Loss of moisture

- dried out. Body damaged, crushed orlacerated. No movement Ireaction to touch. Loss ofmoisture

- dried out. Arm only without part ofbasal disc (can'tregenerate), body damaged, crushed orlacerated. No movement/ reaction to touch. All limbs orfeeding structures missing. Carapace damaged (e.g. large holes orparts missing). No movement Ireaction to touch. Loss ofmoisture

- dried out.'i**~**

'. , J

, j : J**~J**

,. 1 r**.~** '( ;,**~** 

## . ,

, ,
, , Lyttelton Port A. Slobodchikov Godley Hebe Grams Marine (haul-out) Chancellor Lady Crossley Westpark Marina**T~urang~** Marina Macushla No. 1(name nla) No. 2 (name nla) Bahia Chris Robertson Ma Cherie No. 3 (name nla) No. 4 (name nla) Grams Marine (in-water) Triptych

GulfHarbourMarina

- [ .' .,
,', I .' No. 2 (name n/a) Sympatica Lady Thrtodora MoanaAriki No. 3 (name nla)

.. _ i ...•'. ;..,. ,**,,-~_** "'- Cl) Q) U t<:I**~** oD E o (,) 

### < + + 

### + +

+ +

+ + +

+ 

### + + Cl) Q) U t<:I**~** oD Q) Cl) o o 

### o 

# ... Cl) 2 (,) I:: W Cl) fa 2 oCoD

+ § (3 u**.~** (3 V> Cl)**~** I:: o 0. V> Cl)

### ~ u + + Cl) "0 o 0. o**~** + + + 

### + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+

+ 

### + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+
+

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + t + + + +
+ + + 

### + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ 

### + + + +

+ + +

+ + + Cl) fa**~** Q) E 

## Z

+ + + +
+ +

+ +TableA3 Summaryofprojects underthe Marine Waste Reception Facilities Program funded bythe Australian Government. The programme assisted withupto 50% ofthe cost ofinstalling upgraded facilities for the management and treatment ofmarine wastes at a numberofports and marinas throughout Australia. 

### Facility Operations 

### Currenttreatment Proposed upgrade



## . 50% Cose**M~Lean** Slipway Vessel No wastewatercollection 

## • upgrade slipway $19600 maintenance & ortreatment 

## • install collectiondrainand silttrap cleaning 

## • seal washdown areato collec't contaminated water**Fergusson~** Boatshed Vessel servicing No facilities to manage 

## • replace existing slipway with a ship lift $100000 Marina and maintenance solid and liquid wastes 

## • install sandtrap containment ofsolid and liquid waste contaminants Harwood slipway and Vessel servicing No containment of 

## • install sandtrap containment ofsolid and $21 593 engineeringfacility and maintenance slipwaywaste liquidwaste ClontarfMarina Vessel repainting Not specified 

## • construct concrete containment area to $100000 collect washdown wastes 

## ,f, 

## • residues collected and screened to a

, !.' " standard allowingdischarge to the Sydney

. .**~** ;
. i.: ' Water sewerage system

, Bermagui Marine Services Cleaning & Not specified 

## • install concrete containment area around $34985
1 " '

..... ' • " \- painting ofvessels slipway , ' , ' ':: .**~** ,,'" ,-'.

### ,~, 

## ,::**,'r~:;.';;:** 

### ,c:, '";),**~' :"~,:**  "**~:,** ' •• ! " , , , " up to 70 ft pump collected materialto a separation ' , 

## • :

, ' . ' , system (a Static SeparatorPolisher) ! 

### ., . 

## • upgrade sewage collection system

:**~oyal ~,ri~ce**  Alfred Yacht Vessel Not specified 

## • install submersiblepumps located in $50000 Club: maintenance grated solids pits

,**'~.'** .' , 

## • install a holdingtank, an oil/water : {**~** {',

. separator, a recycled water storage tank and 

## . , ,> , • '1

, 1. .. " pressurisedrecycled wateroutlets**,~",~** ," , i

'- • l ,f '_.'**~i~** '; I' ,1'( .'

. - ! • -.'

, " :,.f'

'11- 

### , Dinah Beach Cruising Yacht Association

, -

,,' , ,< - "**~elican's ~l,ipway,**  , ::! d.**~** ,**~** ,', ,-, 

### U'**':,~** 

### '. '. ' . -'" . , , 'j:" , - Cocolmt Slipway Pty Ltd

.. I ,- " , , , ' ,

" ,-

, 

### . I ,-
" • ,I •• Rosshaven Marine Ltd

- '"



### ., -.,' , BundabergPort Marina

Whyte Island Qperations Bases, PortofBrisbane Careening for No containment ofwastes 

## • move careening areato above the high $50000 vessel maintenance water mark. 

## • install 15 tonne straddle lift 

## • develop careening areanextto hardstand area. 

## • contain wastewater from vessel maintenance and pump into settlementtanks for appropriate disposal Not specified Not all wastewater 

## • concrete hardstand areas $10 275 captured 

## • install pump out system and sand filtering Trolley slipway for Washdown waste water 

## • install vortex pumps to pump $8900 large vessels collectedin two sullage contaminated waterinto a 5000 litre cone pits shaped sullage tank. 

## • chemicallytreat waterto settle heavy metals to the bottom ofthe cone. 

## • install separate 1600 litre sludge tank. Slipwayfacility for Poorcontainment of 

## • install dedicated wash-down areato $13 320 recreational, untreated wastewater contain wastewater. charter & fishing 

## • install triple interceptorpit systemto vessels treatthe wastewaterbefore disposal to sewerage. Marina Planned expansion to 

## • install concrete washdown area $47000 include hardstand & travel 

## • install triple interceptorpits lift 

## • install Geotechvertical sand and activated carbon filtration unit. 

## • install boat sewage pump outfacility Washdown facility Inadequate containment of 

## • install 'high tech' washdown pad $24500 for Port vessels & wastewater 

## • full containmentofwastewater" . " 

## '. " ,



### ..-.,'... 

## ,1<'"

•**~** , < '" 'J'**!~.** : 'i ',I , • '. ' - equipment 

## • install oil trap andtanks to hold**.~::.** J' , " 

### - : wastewaterfor appropriate treatment. 

### .,. " Tropical Reef**Shipyar~** Pty Slipwayfor vessels Inadequate containment of 

## • install tidal gates to prevent inundation of $50000

,**.~** .. :. ; Ltd up to 3000 t wastewater slipway 

## • install settlingtank for wastewater ,", treatment for disposal to sewer**D~M** SlipwayPty Ltd Servicing & Two slipways: one with 

## • install settlingtank & pump $65000 maintenance of fully contained treatment, 

## • install evaporationpit vessels Proposal to upgrade the second Hobart Ports Corporation Slipyard & 3 Not specified 

## • install waste liquid collection drains and $110 000 cradles for vessel pits maintenance 

## • install waste liquid treatment/separation systems 

## • install solid waste collection system 

## • install a systemfor dischargingtreated waterto the sewer. Westernport Boat Harbour Washdown area & Sediment collection pit in 

## • install fully contained wash-down bays $11 000 PtyLtd launching ramp the wash-down area for boats up to 20 m inadequate for current usage Royal Geelong Yacht Club Slipwayfor Slipwaywaste currently 

## • upgrade wash down areato ensure full $72685 recreational vessels returned to the sea containment ofwastewater 

## • install pump & Novachem treatment and recycling system to remove all contaminants from the wastewater, which will then be held

, .'

, , for reuse. ,**P~rt** ofApollo Bay Slipway Slipwayfor Limited containment of 

## • install waste interception structure on $25000 maintenance of marine waste slipway to trapfishing & 

## • install settlingtanks and an oil/water recreational vessels separatorfor disposal to sewer. Port ofGeqlldtonHardstand Drydockfor fishing No containment of 

## • install trapping facilities atthe hardstand $15200 boats contaminants 

## • commence regular**wat~r** and sediment monitoring programs IAll estImates representthe AustralIan government contnbutIon InAustralIan dollars

.;, j**"~.** ,
.:' .- f .J ,**,~** ".**,~**

, I 'r;, I**~.** 

### .... 

## . ,:' -! I-

.1,_

'" j :; ';.: 1., .,'


## ., :;' ::',,<,"i:**!~ble** A4 Reproduced from the USEPA Storm WaterRunoffManagementMeasure for Marinas and Recreational Boating (Chapter 5 USEPA

.• , • '

.. ':'.:),.",' ,,' ! 840,-B-92-002, Table 5.3

- StormwaterManagement Practice SummaryInformation). 

### ':'X',:;':

## Lh<-F':!:;~-,;=,

# --:-:/':-'-,-:-'------=:---:-:--:----:-------:::------:----:--:---:-:-:----------------=--:-------=--:-----:---:----=--

:,',.,.' '" ,:."":.

__ " Practice -, Pollutants Removal Use with References Pretreatment of • ,: : t,,', !, 1 l' ,**,,~,** • , ' ". ' " ',,' ',','**:~",** Characteristics' .'**l~ ~**  :'. 'l**~ '~',**  _'
,**.~,**- ''''.'' , ;' ,1

:**~*'-."'****,~,:,'f** :. :.-:,.'**~** -! ',j' 

### ;;(ii':',!. ·r:, ';, ,',., ' . Sand Filter**~ ,~.**  ' .. .:," ,**~** ': -,. -**~'** , '-, \

,**~** .. , ' Constructed Wetlands

Infiltration BasinlTrench

. Controlled
TSS TP

, TN Fecal Col

Metals ',' TSS,

. TP

TN COD

Pb Zn Cu TSS TP TN N01 COD

Pb Zn TSS TP TN BOO Bacteria Metals Efficiencies (%) 60-90

0-80 20-40 40 40-80 50-90 20-90 10-90 10-90 10-95 20-95 38-90 50-90

0-80 0-40 5-95 20-80 30-95 30-80 50-99 50-100 50-100 70-90 75-98 50-100 Other practices Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Cost US$1.11 per ft of runoff

US$349-823

per acre treated; 3-5 % ofcapital cost per year

OfCapital costs: Basins

## =3-13% Trenches = 5-15% Retrofit Suitability

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium (In USEPA 840-8- 92-002) City ofAustin, 1990 Schueler 1991 ; Tull1990

Schueler, 1987; 1991; USEPA, 1986

Schueler, 1987, 1991 Runoff Recommended Yes

Yes, but not

necessary

Yes

Yes,:."**~** , ': ..,,'

.'.

, f

.**.~.** '

, .

.'
.



### 1:; 'i

. , ',"

".**~** ,c, \
.'**~** ...**~** ..**~j** " 0' '" • 't**~** .' :'**~.** ....::. ;, " '. PrCJctice- :**~hiuCJcteristics** ,

, Porous

Pavement '.7\

Vegetated Filter:Strip

"

.

Grassed**Sw~le** Pollutants Controlled TSS TP TN COD



### Pb 

## '#I TSS TP TN COD Metals

TSS TP TN Pb Zn Cu Cd TSS

. BOO

TSS

, COD Removal Efficiencies (%) 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 40-90 30-80 20-60 0-80 20-80

20-40 20-40 10-30 10-20 10-20 50-60

50

60-97 10-56 Use with Other practices No Cost Incremental cost US$40,051- 78,288 peracre

Combine with Seed: practices for US$200-1000 MM per acre;

Combine with practices for MM

Yes

Yes Seed &mulch: US$800-3600 per acre; Sod: US$4500- 48,000 per acre Seed: US$4.50-8.50 per linearft. Sod: US$8.50 per linearft.

US$1100-3000 Retrofit Suitability Low

High

High

High

High References (In USEPA 840-8- 92-002) Schueler, 1987; SWRPC, 1991; Cahill Associates, 1991

Schueleretal. 1992

SWRPC, 1991; Schueler, 1987, 1991; Honer, 1988; Wanielistra and Yousef, 1986
WPCF,1989; Pisano, 1989; USEPA,1982 WPCF,1989; Richards, 1981; SWRPA,1991 Pretreatment of Runoff Recommended

No

No

No

No); ,
' ..

. ,

. " . Practice
-**Charact~ristics**

.Catch Basin with Sand Filter

','.' ,'.: Holding Tank ,;- .,'**,~**. '-**,~** '.,.. > l**~t** .',**~,** 4." , .• J " , f Pollutants Controlled
TSS TN COD

Pb Zn Oil

All Removal Efficiencies (%) 70-90 30-40 40-70 70-90 50-80 High

100 for first flush Use with Other practices High

Yes

Yes Cost US$10,OOO per drainage acre
US$85-93 for 10 pillows Retrofit Suitability References (In USEPA 840-8- 92-002) Shaver, 1991

Silverman, 1989, Industrial Products and Lab Safety, 1991 WPCF,1989 Pretreatment of Runoff Recommended No

No

No

':':'-1::." :::",);".::;

### .~**~~':.** 

## !

.**~:,** .. ,·.f "---------------------------------------------------- 

### >.': ';:':.;:;::',: \ 

## L''. Bo?t

### M.~inten~nce.·**::~':,.,**

## r::',"f'i>**~-,:.** Design :'**'~ .~:'**  • ",r"

•**"~ ~,',**  f',+,**,;;~.·I- f,~'~"";"** **~.** ,'.

. " ,**~,"..** I.'<,::. : " ( '. 

### :;. '**,<~** 

### :',':Oil-grit separators ' l ',' , . J,**~** J'

_

, ,.:! \.**~(** " : -;- , ,I**~** • "" •

\ ",

. {1 , ' 1

.

. ;

" .. .;**~** "**~** All

TSS Minimizes area of pollutant dispersal 10-25 Yes Low

No High
High IEP, 1992

Steel and McGhee 1979 Poruano 1990

. Schueler 1987 WPCF 1989 No

No

,:,..' .:' ,TSS'=,Total suspended solids, TP == Total phosphorus, TN = Total nitrogen, Fecal Col. = Faecal coliform bacteria, BOO = Biological Oxygen " demand, COD = Chemical oxygen demand, NO) = nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, Pb= Lead, Zn = Zinc, Cu= Copper.