An investigation of hull cleaning and associated waste 

treatment options for preventing the spread of nonindigenous marine species 

Oliver Floerl, Ned Norton, Graeme Inglis, Barbara Hayden, Crispin 

Middleton, Matt Smith, Niki Alcock and Isla Fitridge 

Final Research Report for 

Ministry of Fisheries Project ZBS2002-04 

Objectives 1 & 2 

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research 

January 2004 (Revised) 

• 
Report Title 

Authors 

1. Date 

2. Contractor 

3. Project Title 

4. Project Code 

5. Project Leader 

6. Duration of Project 

Start date 

Completion date 

7. Objective 

8. Executive Summary 

Final Research Report 

An investigation of hull 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 

Isla Fitridge 

11 th November 2003 

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research 

Hull cleaning as a factor in introduction and domestic 

spread of marine non-indigenous species (NIS) and 

investigation of treatment options 

ZBS2002-04 

Graeme Inglis 

01 November 2002 

30 November 2003 

Objectives 1 & 2 r, 

In January 2003 the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) contracted NIW A to assess the risk 

posed to marine biosecurity by New Zealand's commercial hull cleaning facilities. 

The specific objectives of this 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 of viable 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 or new hull cleaning situation. 

Between May and August 2003, NIW A staff visited 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 of fouling organisms and liquid effluent was done at all stages of the hull 

- 1 -
cleaning and waste treatment process. Macrofouling was sampled before, and immediately 

following its removal from vessel hulls by freshwater blasting or manual scraping (inwater cleaning). Liquid fouling waste was examined before it entered settlement tanks and 

filters, and following treatment prior to 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 

of mussels in the protected sea chests of large ships. Survival and viability of organisms 

following in-water cleaning by divers, which did not involve exposure to air or highpressure water blasting, was significantly higher (72 %) than in shore-based operations. 

The multi-chamber settlement tanks used by the facilities examined to remove solid 

particles from liquids (water blast effluent) 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 

into the sea. 

The. results of Objective 1 suggest that: 

(1) In-water hull cleaning without collection of fouling 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 treatment pose a more than minor risk 

to marine biosecurity. 

(3) Operations that clean vessels out of the 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 of the water and employ settling tanks and filters 

(e.g. sandfilters) to separate fine particulates from liquid waste prior to discharge 

into the sea pose negligible risk to marine biosecurity. 

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 of vessels cleaned per day (and, therefore, the volume 

-2-
!' 

of water entering the tanks). 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. 

A review of existing 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 marine biosecurity, concerns about the release of toxic 

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 of untreated solid and liquid wastes to the marine environment. 

We recommend fouling waste treatment systems described in (3) above are a desirable 

standard for hull cleaning facilities where there is a risk of contamination by unwanted 

marine organisms. For operators that already have some fonn of collection 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 significant benefits of including additional filtration steps or other 

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 of particles 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 wastewater treatment plants. 

OBJECTIVE 1: 

Introduction 

Hull fouling is an important pathway for the introduction and spread of non-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 of biogenic fouling residues (McClary 

and Nelligan 2001). In addition, an unknown number of vessels are cleaned each year in 

tidal grids, careening bays, or by divers. Treatment and disposal of fouling waste varies 

widely among facilities and cleaning situations. Some facilities dispose of fouling waste 

- 3 -
as landfill. Others discharge solid waste and/or filtered or unfiltered liquid effluent into 

the sea. Because of the variation in treatment and disposal methods it is unclear what 

risk hull cleaning facilities 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 of liquid 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 of the range of cleaning 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 of hull-cleaning facilities in New Zealand to: 

1. Quantify the relative survival of organisms removed under different types of 

cleaning and treatment, 

2. Improve our understanding of the types of hull fouling organisms that are likely 

to survive the various cleaning procedures and 

3. Identify the methods of cleaning, collecting, treatment or disposal of fouling that 

offer the most effective means of killing NIS should they be present. 

The project was 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 existing or new hull cleaning situation. 

9. Methods 

Cleaning facilities visited 

In consultation with MFish, eight hull cleaning facilities were chosen from the list of 

operations visited by McClary and Nelligan (2001) as part of MFish Research Project 

ZBS2000-03. The operations comprised three types of cleaning situations: 

-4-
(1) tidal grids (intertidal facilities) 

(2) hard-stand cleaning operations, and 

(3) . in-water hull cleaning, 

and three methods for treating fouling waste: 

(4) no containment of fouling waste and discharge of all material into the sea (this 

includes in-water hull cleaning), 

(5) separation of solid and liquid waste and discharge of unfiltered liquids into the 

sea, and 

(6) separation of solid and liquid waste and discharge of filtered 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 or three 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 of fouling material occurs in the in-water cleaning operations 

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 of the settlement tanks it either passes 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 of solid and 

liquid fouling waste in each of the facilities that remove vessels from the water for 

cleaning is provided below: 

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 of up 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 upright position. 

Services offered by the dry-dock include: mechanical repairs, removal of fouling and 

application of antifouling paint. Cleaning of vessels is carried out using up to four water 

blasters (freshwater; 4,000 psi). 

Treatment of fouling waste: Solid fouling waste is collected and disposed of as landfill. 

The liquid runoff from 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-
Westpark Marina 

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 of fouling and 

application of antifouling paint. Cleaning of vessels is carried out using a water blaster 

(freshwater; 3,000 psi). 

Treatment of fouling waste: Solid fouling waste is collected and disposed of as 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 outlet from where the water is discharged into the 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 or more frequently if required to maintain 

efficiency of the 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 of vessels is carried out using a water blaster (freshwater; 3,000 psi). 

Treatment of fouling waste: Solid fouling waste is collected and disposed of as landfill. 

The liquid runoff from 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 of as landfill. No flocculation agents are added to the 

settling tanks at any stage. Solid waste is removed from the tanks on average every three 

months. 

Orams Marine 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 of fouling 

and application of antifouling paint. Cleaning of vessels is carried out using a water 

blaster (freshwater; 8,000 psi). 

Treatment of fouling waste: Solid fouling waste is collected and disposed of as landfill. 

The liquid runoff from the water blast 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 

settling tanks at any stage. Solid waste is removed from the tanks on average every three 

months. 

-6-
Changes to the selection of operations visited 

Contact with all facilities was established in February 2003 to outline the purpose of the 

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 of its two tidal grids and allowed use of the 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 

endorsed by MFish (letter dated 27 May 2003). 

Between 10 June and 16 July 2003, NIW A personnel were in regular (daily or bi-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 inspected that used the available tidal grids. All 

of these boats were clean of fouling and removed from the water for either mechanical 

repairs (e.g. change of sacrificial anodes or checking of propeller 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 the July 2003 Progress Report). 

Sampling of vessels removed from the sea for 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 (Lyttelton Drydock), 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 settlement tanks and filters, and following treatment prior to discharge into the sea. 

Definition of a viable organism 

For a fouling organism removed from a boat hull to establish a self-sustaining 

population in New Zealand waters, it must: 

1. survive the cleaning process and be returned 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 would potentially allow it to grow and produce offspring. The 

likelihood of successful establishment of populations 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 of these fragments can only be determined definitively by 

cUlturing them in the laboratory. In this study, we took a pragmatic approach that used 

field assessments of physiological condition and best available knowledge as surrogates 

for more complex tests of viability. 

Sampling of hull-fouling assemblages before and after removal from hulls 

To obtain an estimate of the proportion of organisms that survive the de-fouling process 

and/or the subsequent treatment methods, the amount of fouling on a hull (expressed as 

wet weight) was determined before cleaning commenced. For each vessel, the "total 

wetted surface area (TWSA)" was determined using formulae developed by the antifouling 

paint industry (Akzo Nobel, pers. comm. 2003). Separate formulae were used for different 

classes of vessel: 

Regular yachts: 

TWSA = 2 x Length x Draft 

Superyachts and trawlers: 

TWSA = (2 x Length x Draft) + (beam x draft) 

Large ships (> 100 m length): 

TWSA = (Length between perpendiculars x (Beam + (2 x light load draft))) x 0.72 

Calculation of TWSA 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 of larger ships (Lyttelton dry-dock). Because of access restrictions, only 

10 images could be taken of the hull of the 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-L jars, only one jar could be filled following the cleaning of other 

boats. 

Following collection, each container was emptied into a sorting dish (45cm L x 28cm W 

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 a Wild M-7A dissecting 

miscroscope (31 x magnification) for signs of active feeding and movement. Decisions 

as to whether an organism or fragment was viable were based on criteria developed with 

guidance from NlW A taxonomists (see Appendix Table Al for detail). This sequence of 

activities was continued until all four l-L containers had been emptied and examined. 

Sampling of liquid effiuent prior to discharge into the sea 

In the haul-out facilities four lO-L samples of liquid effluent were taken at each of four 

separate stages in the treatment process. The number of these stages sampled varied 

according to the set-up of the cleaning facility. Samples of liquid effluent were collected 

(1) from the waterblast runoff before 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 of tank contents into the sand trap following cleaning of vessels. 

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 x 100 as 

appropriate). The material was then filtered again and one drop of filtrate 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 of whether the contents of a sample are in their original 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 of viability of small organisms or propagules 

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). 

Sampling of vessels cleaned in the water 

An assessment of the viability of fouling 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 of each vessel using the same method (a paint 

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 of the 

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 of hull-fouling assemblages before and after removal 

from hulls'). Our approach did not include an assessment of propagule (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 

Sampling of solid fouling 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 wet weight (Table 1.2; Plate 1.1). 

The average wetted surface area of vessel hulls cleaned in the dry-dock 

(897.3 ± 456.2 m

2

) was greater than of those cleaned in haul-out facilities 

(37.2 ± 4.1 m

2

) and, as a consequence, the cleaning process generally took much longer 

(dry-dock: 69 ± 54 h; haul-out facilities: 39 ± 8 min; t-test, t11 = 2.59, P = 0.024). All of 

the vessels sampled were cleaned by water blasting (freshwater, 3,000 - 8,000 psi). 

- 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 and types 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 42 min ± 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 wet from the freshwater used in 

the cleaning process. 

The type and severity of physical 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), but considerably 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 of mortality varied among 

operations. Survival of unprotected soft-bodies organisms tended to be lower in 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. 1.2 b). 

Viability of organisms 

The proportion of organisms that remained viable following removal from vessel hulls 

varied considerably among broad 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, but only 0.8 % and 38.7 % of those examined in 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 of fouling 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 of the tube and/or the worm inside it, and/or loss of the 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 of bivalves 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 collected following cleaning of this 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 or the internal cavities of sponges 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 of algae were examined, 

all of which were Enteromorpha sp. These algae grow as a double layer of cells, each of 

which, under certain conditions, could fragment from the main body of the 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 of pigment. More detail on this group is provided below (Sampling 

of liquid effluent). 

Sampling of liquid 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 of up to 63,113 individuals 10 L-1 

(Table 1.4). 

In all of the facilities, average concentrations (N=4 lO-L samples) of intact 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-off from 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 of intact 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 of effluent were taken from the first chamber of the settlement . 

tanks. In Tauranga, the final samples of effluent were taken from the last chamber of the 

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 or viable) 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 of crustaceans, the bodies of nemertean worms or the cells of filamentous 

algae. In all run-off samples 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 of the Lyttelton dry-dock and the Tauranga Marina (Table 1.5). However, 

only in filamentous algae was the stain clearly retained within intact cell walls. For most 

other biota the staining was observed within fragments (e.g. body parts) of organisms. 

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 or discharge liquid of 

any of the facilities visited. 

11. Discussion 

The viability of organisms and efficiency of effluent 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 of liquid 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 of organisms, resulting in a final 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: removal of fouling from vessel hulls 

(a) Solid fouling waste 

Dry-dock and haul-out operations 

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 % of hard-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 of living and reproducing if they had been returned to 

the sea at this stage. The overall viability was 43 % and 16 % of all 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 of soft-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 of survival appear to be greater for organisms living in the sea chests or 

other recesses of larger vessels. Because sea chests are built into the hulls of ships (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 et al. 2003; Dodgshun and Coutts 2003). The application of high-pressure water 

blast to large clumps of mussels - such as those observed in the sea chests of the 

Alexander Slobodchikov - 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 of very 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 of these - such as the crabs, shrimps, isopods, amphipods and 

errant polychaetes associated with clumps of Perna canaliculus in the Alexander 

Slobodchikov's sea chests - are able to survive physical removal from hulls. 

All of the dry-dock and haul-out operations visited in this study collect and contain solid 

waste removed from the vessels and dispose of it as landfill. Despite the relatively high 

rates of survival of organisms following cleaning, therefore, the risk to marine 

biosecurity is comparatively small, since none of the 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 

solid waste will survive. We found that a significant proportion of the fouling organisms 

removed from vessels hulls in dry-dock and haul-out operations remain in a viable state. 

In-water hull cleaning 

We also assessed survival and viability of fouling 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 of this report). However, according to marina 

operators (Westhaven and Gulf Harbour 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 

other locations. 

During in-water cieaning, fouling assemblages are not subject to prolonged exposure to 

air, to high-pressure water blasting, to immersion in freshwater or to 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 % of individuals). With the 

exception of tubeworms (the most abundant, but most fragile group of organisms 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 of facilities 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 if material removed from hulls is not contained and disposed of on 

land. 

(b) Water blast runoff during cleaning of vessel 

The high-pressure water blast used to clean hulls in shore-based cleaning operations 

removed fouling assemblages and often the top layer of antifouling 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 of up to 850 per 10 L. Four of the 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 NIW A specialists indicate that most of the 

animals observed in the cleaning run-off were likely to be dead (M. Kelly-Shanks, G. 

Read and W. Nelson, pers. comm. 2003), as a result of physical 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 < 1 ppt and cleaning run-off that 

- 16-
reaches the marine environment without prior filtration or screening may contain viable 

propagules of this and other euryhaline 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. 

Stage 2: Collection of liquid fouling waste in settlement tanks 

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-off captured 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 of vessels. This variation was reflected in the number of organisms 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 of freshwater organisms that pose no risk to marine biosecurity. 

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 of the 

tank contents. The maximum concentration of intact organisms and propagules recorded 

at this stage was 98 lO L-1

• We believe that most of these were likely to be dead: firstly 

because no active movement of organisms was observed in any samples examined from 

this stage of the treatment process, and secondly, because of the 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 

Westpark Marina. Given an average discharge of 20 L min-l per water blaster (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 of between 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 of approximately 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 of the various facilities). Many species of marine 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 of 5 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 extended periods - 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 of the 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 or total 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 of rain and runoff 

(W. Nelson, pers. comm. 2003). . 

Stage 3: Physical screening and filtration of settlement tank discharge 

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 rainwater run-off. 

Conclusions 

There are differences in the degree of biosecurity risk posed by waste material 

discharged at different stages of the treatment process at hull cleaning operations within 

New Zealand. The results of Objective 1 results suggest that: 

- 18 -
(1) In-water hull 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 treatment pose 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 of organisms 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 of the 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. Because the residence time of water 

in the settling tanks is usually several days, or even weeks (depending on tank 

size and frequency of cleaning), 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 of the water and employ settling tanks and 

filters (e.g. sand filters) to separate fine particulates from liquid waste prior to 

discharge into the sea pose 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 of 80 J..Ill1 or less. Three of the 

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 of post-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 of this 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. 

OBJECTIVE 2: 

Introduction 

To address this objective we reviewed existing national and international guidelines for 

containment and treatment of wastes 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 of different treatment options for New Zealand 

hull-cleaning facilities. 

It is important to note that the focus of Objective 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 of organic biomass, particulates (e.g., paint flakes), hydrocarbons and soluble, 

toxic anti-foul ant 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 of the waste from these 

facilities (see below). 

12. Review of existing regulations and guidelines for hull-cleaning 

New Zealand regulations & 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 that provide the planning framework for environmental decisionmaking for non-fisheries coastal resources. Policy 5.2.1 of the NZCPS deals with the 

disposal of waste from vessel cleaning facilities. It states that: 

"Provision should be made to require adequate and convenient rubbish disposal 

facilities in ports, marinas and other such busy areas, and for the provision of facilities 

for the collection and appropriate disposal of the residuesfrom vessel maintenance." 

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 their Regional Coastal Plans. 

Auckland Regional 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 a permitted activity subject to the following 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 or foams, 

or floatable or suspended materials; or 

ii any conspicuous change in the colour or visual 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 any future 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 or fauna. 

Explanation. "ACSV areas" are Areas of significant Conservation Value identified in 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 

(Environment Waikato 2003). Rule 16.2 of the 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 

The Wellington Regional Coastal Plan encourages boat-servicing facilities to dispose of 

waste through land-based municipal treatment facilities. 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. "Other contaminants from vessels" includes offal, food wastes 

and vessel cleaning residues. 

Environment Bay of Plenty 

The Regional Coastal Plan for the Bay of Plenty 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 surrounding environment. Section 9.2.3 (k) of the 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, Environment Bay of Plenty 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 into the 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 of the Regional Coastal Plans deal explicitly with management of marine 

pests or risks to marine biosecurity, concerns about the release of toxic contaminants 

from boat yards and cleaning facilities and their effects on the coastal marine 

environment have meant that many of the larger Regional Authorities are prohibiting or 

discouraging return of untreated solid and liquid wastes to the marine environment. 

International regulations and guidelines 

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 USA to manage waste from 

boat cleaning and maintenance facilities. 

AUSTRALIA 

In Australia the state environmental protection agencies administer a Code of Practice 

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 or in a dry dock, anq 

prohibit any in-water cleaning of vessel hulls in Australian waters without a pennit from 

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 should be 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 that the 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 Waste Reception 

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 of these upgrades is provided 

in Appendix Table A3. Movement toward best practice in these facilities generally 

involved developing procedures for the containment and treatment of all 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 or disposal 

in municipal sewerage facilities. The proposed upgrades involved a variety of treatment 

facilities, with the most common being settlement tanks and sand traps to capture 

suspended particulates in the liquid wastewater. 

USA 

In the USA, boat yards 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 of waste 

from boat cleaning and maintenance facilities. "Management Measures" are defined in 

section 6217 of the 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 of the 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., cement areas) for hull maintenance 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 other practices are not appropriate or pretreatment is necessary. The primary 

disadvantages of using 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) 

EP A 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 of the treatment methods contained in 

the EPA Management Measure for Marinas and Recrell:tional Boating is provided in 

Appendix Table A4. Some of these are discussed 

- 25-
13. Review of hull-cleaning methods and waste containment, treatment and 

disposal systems currently used in 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 Report ZBS 2000/03. A simplified summary of 

the various types of systems described in that report is shown in Table 2.1. 

In .addition to the operations described in MFish Report ZBS 2000/03, two other 

methods have been identified during the preparation of this report and are also included 

in Table 2.1. First is the practice of mooring small vessels within containment bags 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 Zealand Diving 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 

prepared for the Ministry of Fisheries titled Development of Incursion Response Tools -

Underwater Vacuum Trials (NZ Diving and Salvage Ltd, 2002). 

Table 2.1 divides the various systems into types based on the nature of the 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 of cleaning 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 

or all of the solid and liquid wastes to sea. 

• Only operations that are out-of-water can effectively contain and treat all wastes and 

dispose of liquid and solid effluent in a controlled manner. In-water vacuuming and 

enclosed-bag herbicide treatment do provide some treatment and containment, but in 

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 of solids to land and divert treated liquid waste to 

any of several discharge options (i.e., back to the sea, re-use for water blasting, 

treatment on site and/or via local sewer system to wastewater treatment plant). 

In summary a variety of hull-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 existing systems in New Zealand 

Performance of treatment systems tested in this project 

The performance of several existing treatment systems was analysed in Objective 1 of 

this report. Conclusions on the survival of marine organisms at different stages of the 

tested treatment processes were provided in Section 12. These conclusions are briefly 

summarised in Table 2.2. Briefly, we found that large proportions (16%-72%) of the 

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 of liquid 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 

Performance of underwater hull-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 material from the more 

uniform areas of the hull (flat sides), but the challenge now lies with cleaning the 

areas protected from strong laminar flows (APSLF) such as the gratings, pipes, sea 

chests, rope guards, rudders, bow thrusters and bilge keels on the hulls of vessels. It 

is recommended, therefore, that the diver-operated vacuuming nozzle be tested during 

a merchant ship's hull de-fouling operation to determine whether or not it is a 

practical tool for removing, collecting and filtering de-/ouled material from these 

APSLF. " (Coutts, 2002). 

Coutts (2002) also concluded that the filtering system used by NZ Diving 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 " .. . not yet known if the filtering plant can be utilised for de-fouling 

the hulls of other vessels including merchant ships." They therefore recommended 

that the system be further tested for performance with different filter bag sizes and 

flow rates. 

Similar underwater hull 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 of the device rotate and sweep biofouling off the hull and up a vacuum 

pipe to collection tanks. While these methods are reported to be effective at removing 

biofouling from vessels stiIl in the water, the efficiency of the methods at capturing 

and containing all potentially viable biological material is reported to be variable 

depending on the extent of bio-fouling, conditions in the water and skill of the 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 1 in Table 2.2. 

14. Consideration of alternative treatment technologies 

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 of ship ballast water. Both of these 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 treatment processes 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 

storm water 

The USEP A Management Measure for Marinas and Recreational Boating (USEP A 

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 or basins 

• Vegetative swales or filter strips 

• Ponds and/or wetlands 

• Oil and grit separators 

• Coarse contaminant traps (or swirl concentrators) 

• Absorbant booms or pillows 

These options are compared in Table 2.3(A), with comments on cost considerations, 

performance reliability, and practical advantages and disadvantages. A brief 

summary of each is provided below. 

Settling tanks 

Settling tanks are basically large containers designed to hold volumes of waste for 

prolonged retention periods. These can be steel concrete, fibreglass or polymer tanks 

that are used for above-ground storage, or subsurface constructed tanks. Contaminant 

removal is essentially by "settling out" of suspended particles that are denser than 

water. In the context of treatment to reduce risks to marine biosecurity, treatment in 

these systems is also afforded by the prolonged exposure of marine organisms to fresh 

water in the tank. Settling tanks are currently the most common method of primary 

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 of accumulated waste to landfill. The 

key issue for successful implementation is sufficient storage volume to allow a 

satisfactory time for retention of liquid 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 

enhanced by supplementary add-ons after primary settling such as sand filtration. 

Sand (or other media) filters 

Sand filters consist of layers of sand of varying grain size (grading from coarse sand 

to fine sands or peat), with an underlying gravel bed for infiltration or perforated 

underdrains for discharge of treated 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 of confidence 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 

of effluent onto a sandy beach, as is practiced in some locations, is not considered an 

appropriate form of sand filtration. 

The initial outlay for installation of sand filters can be large. McClary and Nelligan 

(2000) reported a typical 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. 

InfIltration trenches or basins 

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 of infiltration basins is similar to that of sand 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 of flat 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 or filter strips 

Vegetative swales and filter strips are low-gradient conveyance channels that remove 

contaminants by entrapment and settling of particulate contaminants as the flow runs 

perpendicular to surface vegetation. They are not practical on very flat grades or on 

steep slopes or in wet or poorly drained soils and require a reasonably 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 of initial particle 

removal. They have not been tested for treating hull-cleaning wastes in New Zealand. 

Ponds and/or wetlands 

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 of viable 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 and grit separators 

Oil and grit separators are constructed traps designed to catch solids via settling and 

oil via surface floating separation. They are commonly used for stormwater treatment 

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 contaminant traps (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 

of installation are likely to be in the o~der of NZ$1 0,000 - $NZ30,000. They have not 

been tested for treating hull-cleaning wastes in New Zealand. 

Absorbant booms or pillows 

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 of contaminants (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 

reducing biosecurity risk 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 hydro geology and hydraulic conditions. Therefore there would need to 

be a significant development and testing component if these 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 reduce biosecurity 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 of the 1 st International Ballast Water Treatment Research 

and Development Symposium in London (Raaymakers 2001). From these sources, 

the available technologies that we consider could be relevant for hull-cleaning 

operations are summarised below: 

• U se of fresh water to kill viable marine organisms 

• Use of heat to kill viable organisms 

• Self-cleaning mechanical filters 

• Hydrocyclones or mechanical centrifugal particle separators 

• Chemical biocides including hydrogen peroxide, chlorine (hypochlorite), 

chlorine dioxide, ozone, glutaraldehyde, copper/silver ion systems and 

natural biocides. 

• Ultra violet (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 of the various potential ballast water treatment technologies [including those 

listed above] are currently at a very early stage of development 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. 

• It appears that any new ballast water treatment system will involve a combination 

of technologies, for example primary filtration or physical separation followed 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-
Advanced technologies for toxic chemical contaminants 

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 of release 

of harmful 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 

Management Act. 

Any treatment system that removes particulate materials (e.g., settling, filtration or 

other particulate separation) will also remove a substantial proportion of anti-foul ant 

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 a practicable 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 of TBT in wastewaters in accordance with 

shipyard operations (36 hours for washdown). The CASRM Barge Mounted 

System has evolved from bench type laboratory scale treatment systems to a 

shipyard size demonstration project. 

• There is no inexpensive advanced treatment system or technologies available in 

commercial sizes that can rapidly treat million gallon quantities of TBT 

contaminated ship washdown or runoffwastewatersfrom shipyards and drydocks. 

In light of this, the most effective mechanism currently available for managing these 

toxic chemical contaminants is probably to remove as large a proportion as possible of 

particulate material for controlled disposal to land, and to discharge the liquid effluent 

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. If the discharge is not acceptable 

to the local treatment plant operator the only remaining option would be 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 of residues, 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 of Practice 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 circumstances and permission will not normally be 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 it to 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 or in dry-dock. 

• Containment of all liquid and solid waste (usually achieved using walls, 

bunds, cut-off drains and isolated sumps). 

• Collection of all solid and liquid waste residues with disposal of solids on 

land and diversion of liquids 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 

of shorter retention times at particular sites. 

• Treatment in settling tanks was in some cases (but not all) followed by 

filtration via either sand-bed or sand and peat-bed filters. 

• Discharge of settled or filtered solid residues on land. Discharge of 

treated liquid effluent to sea or to 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 the existing system to achieve the characteristics listed in (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 

not preclude the use of other, 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 (if local circumstances allow) and targeted underwater hull vacuuming 

(in cases where removal of the vessel from water is not an option). The relative 

merits of these options would need to be considered on the basis of site-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 of any of these 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 of including 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 

wastewater treatment plants. 

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, Gulf Harbour Marina 

and the Tauranga Marina for their kind help and assistance with the planning and 

completion of the 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 

(NIW A) provided taxonomic expertise and helped developing guidelines for the 

assessment of viability 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 of temperature 

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 

potentially unsuitable environment. Biological Invasions 2: 75-79. 

Auckland Regional Council (2002). Proposed Auckland Regional Coastal Plan. 

Prepared by the Auckland Regional 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 Biology 46: 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). Staining procedures. 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. Report prepared for NZ Diving and Salvage 

Ltd. Cawthron Report No. 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 

Pollution Bulletin. 

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. NIW A Technical Report 34. 

National Institute of Water 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 of Conservation (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 Fouling in Victoria. Victorian Government Printer, Melbourne. 

Environment Bay of Plenty (2001). Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan. 

Adopted by the Bay of Plenty 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. IMO London. 

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 Animal Ecology 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, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 

Kitamura, H. and Hirayama, K. (1985). The effect of low salinity on the early growth of 

a bryozoan Bugula neritina in the sea and laboratory. Bulletin of the Japanese 

Society of Scientific Fisheries 51: 1401-1405. 

Lohse, D. P. (1993). The importance of secondary substratum in a rocky intertidal 

community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 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 1

st 

International Ballast Water Treatment Research 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 of Fisheries (Project ZBS2000103). 

McCracken, W. E. (2001). Ballast Water Treatment with Currently Available Biocides. 

Pages 81-87 in: Raaymakers, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1

st 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 of exotic 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 

Initiati ve (http://www.nht.gov.au/nht l/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 Vacuum Trials. Report prepared for the NZ Ministry of Fisheries. 

Raaymakers, S. (ed.) (2001). Proceedings of the 1 st International Ballast Water 

Treatment Research 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 and Freshwater Research 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). Ballast Water Treatment - An Overview of Options. 

Pages 3-6 in: Raaymakers, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1

st International Ballast 

Water Treatment Research 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 1

st 

International Ballast Water Treatment Research and Development Symposium. 

IMO London. 

Saito, Y. (1975). Undaria. In: Advance of Phycology in Japan. (1. Tokida and H. 

Hirose, eds.). Or. W. Jung b.v., Den Haag. Pages 304-320. 

Sanderson, J. C. and Barrett, N. (1989). A survey of the distribution of the 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 Brisbane River. Journal of Animal Ecology 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 1

st 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 Sea Systems Command, April 2002. 

United States Navy (2003). Uniform National Discharge Standards - Nature of 

Discharge Report for Underwater Ship Husbandry. Report prepared by 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 1

st 

International Ballast Water Treatment Research 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 of Fishery Biology, 

Institute for Marine Science, Kiel. Pages 11-19. 

- 40-
Wellington Regional Council (2001). Wellington Regional Coastal Plan. Adopted by 

the Wellington 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 1

st International Ballast Water Treatment Research and Development 

Symposium. IMO London. 

- 41 -
List of tables, figures and plates 

. ,. : ..... 

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

~ TO " ' • ' 

:- : .', ~ , 

. " .... -: 

':--, -. ' . 

.' 

J" '. j 

., ... ~ .. " 

.' -
, Table 1.1: Hull cleaning facilities that were visited or contacted during Research Project ZBS2002-04. 

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 

Gulf Harbour 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 of solids 

and liquids 

Settling tanks 

Settlement tanks & 

flocculating agent 

Grit arrestors 

Settling tanks 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 (200 I). These figures refer to the sum of vessels cleaned in all available operations offered by the facilities. For example 2,000 vessels 

are' cleaned in the Tauranga Marina each 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) 

Cleaning by Orams Marine, Auckland (3) 

divers 

Gulf Harbour Marina, 

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) 

Moana Ariki (27/06/03) 

No. 3 (name n/a) (27/06/03) 

Vessel type Length 

Fishing trawler 104.5 m 

Harbour tug 28.7 m 

LPGTanker 76.4 m 

Motor yacht 11.5 m 

Sailing yacht 16.15 m 

Sailing yacht 12.03 m 

Harbour tug 14.8 m 

Motor yacht l3.4m 

Sailing yacht 12.5 m 

Sailing yacht 12.2 m 

Launch 12.8m 

Launch 12.8 m 

Sailing yacht 11.9 m 

Motor yacht 21.3 m 

Sailing yacht 15.24 m 

Motor yacht 13.7 m 

Sailing yacht IOm 

Sailing yacht IOm 

Sailing yacht 10.5 m 

Total wetted 

surface area 

1762.5 m2 

213.7 m2 

715.6 m2 

23 m2 

36.5 m2 

33.0 m2 

59.6 m2 

43.7 m2 

. 50 m2 

18.3 m] 

41.6 m2 

23.8 m2 

42.8 m2 

127.8 m2 

48.8 m2 

71.24 m2 

30 m2 

30m2 

31.5 m2 

Area fouled; fouling weight 

(::I:SE) 

263.2::1:80.9 m2

; 614::1:285 kg 

36.1::1:16.7 m2

; 79::1:22 kg 

112.9::1:45.6 m2

; 122::1:57 kg 

1.2::1:0.7 m2

; 1.6::1:0.4 kg 

1.6::1:0.6 m2

; 0.6::1:0.1 kg 

15.5::1:2.4 m2

; 151::1:65 kg 

17.2::1:3.7 m2

; 69::1:41 kg 

1.6::1:0.5 m2

; 1.9::1:0.1 kg 

4.1::1:3.2 m2

; 0.9::1:0.1 kg 

0.3::1:0.1 m2

; 0.05::1:0.006 kg 

1.3::1:0.4 m2

; 1.6::1:0.1 kg 

0.7::1:0.3 m2

; 0.9::1:0.2 kg 

1.3::1:0.4 m2

; 0.7::1:0.1 kg 

4.8::1:1.2 m2

; 1.2::1:0.6 kg 

1.5::1:0.8 m2

; 0.3::1:0.06 kg 

5.5::1:2.6 m2

; 0.6::1:0.1 kg 

1.2::1:0.66 m2

; 1.0::1:0.4 kg 

4.5::1:1.6 m2; 3.6::1:0.5 kg 

8.1::1:1.5 m2; 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. For more detail see Appendix Table A2. 

Lyttelton Port 

Orams Maripe (haul-out) 

~estp~rk Marina 

Tauranga Marina 

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 

§ 

o 

No 

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 

37 
Table 1.4: Concentrations cif organisms in the liquid waste sampled in the dry-dock and haul-out operations at various stages of treatment. 

All concentrations are given as abundance 10 L- 1 (± s.e.) except filamentous algae, for which a ranks scale of abundance (0-5) was used. 

" • t 

~~ • "1 

, " ~, 

.' 1',,_', 

. ' 

, • ,}.1 • .'1. t - " ~ 

., I l," ... _', .' 

. "'_,' I:,: :: .. ,:' • ' .. ;., ; ... , ',(' ~ 

\ -J :.~ " ~.' f' , . . ~ , 

q f ,,' - LytteIton Port ;.' . Cleaning runoff 

. ; 

" t. ~'I" , Settlement tanks 

. Tank discha'rge 

, Cleaning runoff 

Settlement tanks I , '. ",\ .. 

Tank discharge 

Westpark Marina Cleaning runoff 

Settlement tanks 

Tauranga Marina Cleaning runoff 

Settlement tanks 

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 ('+') of visible movement (examined by microscope) and mitochondria 

(vital staining with Janus Green) in the liquid samples taken at various stages of treatment in 

the operations visited. It was not possible to sample run-off from water blasting for some of 

the vessels whose cleaning was attended (Lyttelton: Hebe; Orams Marine: Macushla; 

Westpark Marina: Boat 2; Tauranga: Chris Robertson). 

Lyttelton Port Cleaning runoff 

A. Slobodnich 

Godley 

Settlement tanks 

Tank discharge 

Orams Marine Cleaning runoff 

Chancellor 

Lady Crossley 

Settlement tanks 

Tank discharge 

Westpark Marina Cleaning runoff 

Boat I 

Bahia 

Settlement tanks 

Tauranga Marina Cleaning runoff 

Ma Cherie 

Boat 3 

Boat 4 

Settlement tanks 

Tank discharge 

Movement Mitochondria present 

+ + 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

., 

• '. ~ r ,',: 1 

.. -' - - ',- - .-. 
,~ !: 

" 

Table 1.6:' Salinity tolerances of some well-known NIS. 

" , .' 

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 , ,", " ,Balanus amphitrile; acorn barnacle .!';. ,,1 I '. 

I ,. >; •.. ! ~' ~ 

:! " ':, ~ t ~" . : !:~ : ,.:" 

< 'r,,;"F<.,·:·,,:';,' :', ; .,. , '. '. ; j - ":' )" ~ ( ~ ~ .. :. ' " " ,,:,"., ': {'- < Botlylloides leachi; colonial' 

. ascidian 

.' ~ . ' 

/,"1 I 

NZ distribution (Cranfield et al. 1998) 

Whangarei and Waitemata Harbours, 

Hawkes Bay 

Waitemata and Lyttelton Harbours 

Northern NZ harbours, Waikanae River, 

Tasman Bay, Pelorus Sound 

All harbours except Onehunga, Gisborne 

and Oamaru. 

Waitemata Harbour 

Salinity tolerance 

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 suggest 2-35 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. (or more) but 

developmental period longer at low salinities. At 

10 ppt. there is 99 % larval mortality. Larval 

survival dependent on the speed of the osmoshock 

as much as on the magnitude of drop in salinity. 

Growth and survival in a minimum of24 ppt. if 

temperatures> 18°C. Maximum tolerance 44 ppt. 

Source 

Hill (1967); 

Straughan (I 972) 

Mak & Huang (1982) 

NIMPIS (2002a) and 

references therein 

Matawari (1951); 

Kitamura & Hirayama (1985) 

Anii et al. (1995) 

Cawthorne (1978) 

NIMPIS (2002b) 

Brunetti et al. (I 980) 

" ",. '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'~,:, Sabella spallanzanfi; sabellid ' . Not recorded in NZ. Tolerates salinities of 26 - 38 ppt. Dies after 2-12 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. Summary of systems currently used in NZ for the collection, treatment and disposal of wastes generated from vessel hull-cleaning 

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

Site tY(>e Cleaning method Collection method Treatment method 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 or other solid Sea , , 

cutter head 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 

qut of water below high tide Scraping or scrubbing Some collection of solids none Some solids may be Sea 

(tidal grids, careening bays) but no containment disposed to landfill but ~ : " t • 

remainder reclaimed by . ' 

.r . 

. ' " ~ rising tide , .. 

Out of~ater above high tide Water-blasting, scraping Liquid and solid material Settling tanks, either single Landfill or other solid Sea 

(~rY-docks; travel lifts, or sanding collected in a contained compartment or baffled with waste facilty (and in some cases 

synchro lifts or slipways)' hard-stand area several compartments in series recycled to water- , , : blasting) , ~ : ; 

Out of water above high tide Water-blasting, scraping Liquid and solid material Settling tanks with some Landfill or other solid Sea 

(dry-docks, travel lifts, or sanding collected in a contained chemical enhancement of waste facilty (and in some cases 

synchro lifts or slipways) hard-stand area separation process (e.g., recycled to water-

" 

flocculants such as Magnaj/oc blasting) 

and alum for pH correction) 

Out of water above high tide Water-blasting, scraping Liquid and solid material Settling tanks followed by Landfill or other solid Sea 

(dry-docks, travel lifts, or sanding collected in a contained sand filter and/or sand/peat waste facilty (and in some cases 

s~nchro lif1:s or slipways) hard-stand area polishing filter recycled to waterblasting) 

Out C?f water above high tide Water-blasting, scraping Liquid and solid material Equalizing tank, clarifier, sand Landfill or other solid To community waste-

(dry-docks, travel lifts, or sanding collected in a contained filter, final filters (I ~m) waste facilty water treatment plant 

synchro lifts or slipways) hard-stand area 
1::"', : ;" •• ;,-

.. • " 1

" A: :!~,.:." 

t '. 'I :' ' < 

, ' ; , :',' ,':: :::: \: Table 2.2. Summary of measured performance of existing treatment systems 

.• :.- . i _~: ~, 

. ~,~ ,,; ,'" 

'" . :.' 

.') .. 

,;:,:. ," .. 

.! 

Removal and 

treatment method, 

Removal of fouling 

from ve~sel hulls 

(Treatmen't. Stage 11) 

~ollection and 

treatment of liquid 

fouling waste in 

settlement tanks 

(Treatm'ent Stage 21) 

Physical screening and 

filtration of settlement 

tank effluent 

J.. (Treat,?ent Stage 3 1

) 

. r, )'; 

~ '1 I!", :: ~ 

:,,' ~:, ' .. ', ,~'~., J.::' r ~. ~ , ,-'.' :i.: ~ ,; 

. Description 

Hull-fouling material is physically 

disrupted by cleaning removal 

processes (e.g., scraping, water 

blasting, brushing etc) but is not 

further treated in any way. Three 

types were assessed including: 

• in-water cleaning 

• dry-dock operations 

• haul-out facilities 

Liquid fouling waste is collected in 

settlement tanks where marine 

organi~ms are held in fresh water 

and particulates are separated from 

liquid by settling. 

Primary treated effluent from 

settlement tanks is subsequently 

passed through a sand-filter 

Performance conclusions 

Significant proportions of marine 

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. 

Treatment removed >99% of animals, 

larvae and unicellular organisms. Of 

the <1 % that passed 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 or unicellular 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 of various stages of treatment 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 potentially be used for the treatment of wastes generated from vessel hull-cleaning. Two 

types of treatment method are listed; 

A) Suspended particle removal technologies commonly used for stormwater (Sources: ARC 2003; USEPA 1993) 

B) Ballast water treatment technologies (Sources: Rigby and Taylor 2001) 

Treatment Cost considerations Performance Advantages Disadvantages 

method 

A - SUSPENDED-PARTICLE REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES COMMONLY USED FOR STORM WATER .' 

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% of total suspended operation costs discharge for suitable retention 

NZ$5 - 10,000. solids (TSS) removed - Potentially high removal period 

- Ongoing maintenance of organisms when combined 

costs low but include with fresh water storage 

removal of accumulated Operationally & material from bottom. -

technologically simple 

" Likely to remove other , - ,- contaminants (e.g., oils, fine I', .. 

:j ',1,- .' 'I' , particulates [paint flakes] and '. r· ~ • .. If' ; :. ' . some soluble contaminants) . ~!.' ! i ' 

.Sand filters or - , Initial capital - Effective at removing - Relatively cheap on- - Requires some pre-

'contained bed filters installation cost is viable organisms. going operation costs treatment (e.g., primary 

, , 

with other bed-media ' . relatively high. Capable of removing Potentially high settling) with reasonable .. - - storage retention volume - Ongoing maintenance particles down to the 60Ilm reliability of organism control because water passage rate . , . costs include removal and 'particle standard' . 

repiaceinent of fouled sand - Operationally and through sand filter is slow. 

.. layers . - Capable of removing technologically fairly simple 

between 75% (Hynds Pipe - Likely to remove a high . , t ,f, -" ~ Requires some pre- Systems Ltd) and 89% proportion of other treatment to remove gross (Remedial Solutions Inc.) of contaminants in addition to solids and reduce clogging. TSS. marine organisms (e.g., oils, 
- Likely to remove some fine particulates [paint flakes] 

proportion of soluble and some soluble 

" , contaminants. contaminant removal). ';. " I 

Infiltration trenches or - Initial capital - Similar to 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 if the - 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 of other 

, 'removal and replacement of contaminants (e.g., oils, fine 

upper layers of trench beds particulates [paint flakes] and 

or basins. 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 preferably at lower 

wetIands (vegetation swales or filter without the need for any Operationally and level than hull-cleaning work 

strips) to very high liquid discharge to sea if the -

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 

Ongoing costs include enough, porous enough and if high proportion of other depending on design. 

maintenance of vegetation 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 of removing alone' treatment system 

- Ongoing cleaning waste. They would hydrocarbon contaminants. 

be a useful addition to a maintenance costs include - Relatively cheap onremoval of accumulated oil treatment process to remove going operation costs hydrocarbon contamination. an~ grit. - Operationally and 

technologically simple 

Coarse contaminant - Initial capital - Removes coarse - Requires only small - Requires waste water 

-', .' 

! •• ( 
" 

'-. 'I', 

• • ., 'of .. ~ , 

, l ;-,,: 

. " 

, " ,"'" .:; I -

" .,:" J"~ - ,~-;;- ~ ~ 

- , , 

-- . '-, 

: I,: # 

,,-... : ;', 

,1-, ',' :,' 

, -.' " 

~ : ~ , ~ 

.' , . 

:,' 

- I-

, i, 

~ -, '-' 

traps relying on installation cost is high. 

cylindrical circular Likely to be -NZ$l 0,000 -

flow separation (swirl $30,000. 

concentrators) 

Absorbant booms or - Capital cost very - pillows low - around NZ$250 per 

pillow or small boom 

B - BALLAST WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 

Fresh water exposure - Fresh water is - cheaply available. 

- Estimated cost of 

between NZ$0.07 per m3 to - NZ$1.37 per m3 depending 

on the use ofrecycled 

process water or potable 

fresh waterl 

Heat exposure - Costs variable - depending on the 

: . availability of waste-heat 

- .- sources 

, ' - Estimated cost of - . ". NZ$0.02 per m3 .... ' . to NZ$ ;, 0.05 per m3 for ballast tank , ~ I , 

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

. ... 

,- -

Self-cleaning ~creen - Initial capital cost is - filtration : likely to be relatively high 

, ',- .: , -~ . 

- " 

, I 

material only. Unlikely to area and sited below ground stream to be flowing (Le., 

provide reliable performance Relatively cheap on- through pipe system) 

for small particle sizes. Useful -

only as primary treatment going operation costs - Not an effective 'standprior to other method 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 

"Can provide a velY organism control capital costs) to achieve 

consistent minimum retention effective means of organism - Discharge of fresh periods, particularly if rainfall 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 

at temperatures in the vicinity requiring only small retention high on-going operation 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. 

"Can provide a very - High reliability of 

effective and environmentally organism control 

attractive option" (Rigby and - Discharge of cooled Taylor, 200 I). 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 per mJ to marine organisms from ballast small retention times and and testing during 

NZ$O.37 per m3 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 of organisms 

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 per m for ballast post treatment (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 controlling organisms high on-going maintenance. 

maintenance is likely to (Sutherland et al., 200 I). - 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. only copper ion, hypochlorite treatment requiring only discharged to environment " 

(includes hydrogen, (NZ$0.27 per m3 to and glutaraldehyde are small retention times and requiring careful assessment 

pero~ide, chlorine' ;' \,' NZ$0.46 per m3 for ballast "currently available" therefore small storage and management of effects. 

. (hypochlorite); chlorine' tank applications) 1 (McCracken, 200 I). capacities. - Relatively high on-going dioxide, ozone, . , ' 

'glutaraldehyde and - On-going cost is - Peraclean® Ocean (a - Potentially high cost of biocide. 

copper/silver ion' likely to be relatively high formulation based on peroxy removal of organisms 

but variable depending on 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 et af 200 I). , - SEAKLEEN® (a 

natural organic oxidant) is 

also effective on broad range 

of organisms and breaks down 

quickly in the environment 

(cost = US$0.20/metric tonne 

treated water). (Wright and 

Dawson 200 I) 
"," >. . 

, " 

' .. ,I '.: 

, ~ . 

Ultra violet (UV) irradiation - Initial capital cost is high - "Commonly currently used - Potentially rapid - Questionable 

i' '. ; (NZ$0.18 per m3 to NZ$0.60 in wastewater treatment; treatment removal of , , 

per m3 for ballast tank promising, but turbidity musl be 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 of UV on treatment to 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 (200 I) analysed the relative cost-effectiveness (in Australian dollars) of several treatment options for treating ship ballast-water. Note that their 

analysis assumes that waste water is already contained in vessel ballast tanks, and therefore no consideration is made for the capital costs of building hardstand 

containment and collection areas, as would be required for hull-cleaning operations. Therefore Rigby and Taylor's (2001) cost estimates are broadly indicative of the 

relative co'st differences between options, but should not be treated as reliable estimates of costs to implement the options at hull-cleaning sites. 

2 The USEPA fv1anagement Measure for Marinas and Recreational Boating (USBPA 1993) gives cost estimates in $US (I993) for a range of technologies 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 settlement tank, 

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 fo r solid and liquid fo uling material in the fac ilities visited. Difterences in treatment methods among 

fac ilities 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) 

bO 75 

Cl 

a 

Cl 

'"0 

c: 

;j 50 Ul 

a 

en 

·s 

Cl 25 

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 errant polychaetes, sponges, motile molluscs, flatworms, 

nemertean worms, anemones); grey bars: hard-bodied taxa (barnacles; bivalves, bryozoans, 

serpulid and spirorbid polychaetes, 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/aInwater 

(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=4 

Orydock 

N=1994 

Haulout. 

N=3286 

In- . 

water 

Figure_I.3: Viability of broad taxonomic groups following their removal from vessel hulls in 

dry-dock, haul-out and m-water cleaning operations. Black bars: 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/a 

Orydock 

N/a 

Haulout 

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/a 

Orydock 

N/a 

N=3 

Haulout 

N=16 

N=lO 

N=34 

Inwater 

Figure 1.3 (continued): Viability of broad taxonomic groups following their removal from 

vessel hulls in dry-dock, haul-out-and in-water cleaning operations. Black bars: viable; grey. 

bars: non-viable. 

'< .0;: 

- -- ,.~ -. ~ . . . , • ",-,-+" " 

. - '. - ~ . ~~ .. "'. . ,,~ • _ -.. : _ , • , J. ' • 

'. ,. • "', "i. '-', ';. '". ;-, - - ~ _'~ • ~ 

_ -, • _ J _,:. ,';:' _. -- • 

: ::-:-::-C,_ . -~.~' ~ .. ,,:.' "::";.:'.:~'~'j ",':"::' ~;f;: " .... 

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

.~:~.:-~, :":, ~~:·:::;-c.~,~:~t~:}::~~~~;_:' .-: _.- .. ' 
Ca) Lyttelton dry-dock 

;--.. 

<Ii 10000 

ui 

-H 

'-" 

;--.. 1000 

~ 

0 100 

v 

u 10 t:: 

~ 

"'0 

t:: 

::::I 

..c 1 ~ 

'-" OJ) 

0 0.1 -l 

Cb) Westpark Marina 

;--.. 

~ 10000 Cl) 

-H 

'-" 

;--.. 1000 ~ 

0 

v 100 u 

t:: 

~ 

"'0 

t:: 

::::I 10 ..0 

~ 

'-" OJ) 

0 

-l 

Cc) Tauranga marina 

;--.. 

~ 100000 ~ Cl) 

-H 

'-" 

;--.. 10000 

~ 

0 1000 v 

u 

t:: 

~ 100 "'0 

t:: 

::::I 

..0 10 ~ 

'-" OJ) 

0 

-l 

Animals Propagules . Unicellular 

. organisms 

Figure..1.4: (a) - (d) Concentrations (abundance 10 L'lyof animals, propagules (larvae, spores 

and eggs).and unicellular organisms in liquid samples taken at various stages of treatment. 

(e) Average rank of abundance (1- 5) of filamentous algae. Black bars: water blast run-off; 

greyb~: first chamber of settlement tanks;'white bars: effluent discharged (N.B, this 

includesJiquid from the final chamber of settlement tanks (Tauranga);. unfiltered (Lyttelton) 

and filtered (Orams Marine) discharge. Percentages above the bars represent the reduction in 

ab1..Uldaz.aCe-relative.to concentrations in the.water blast.run-ofLFor example, in the effluent 

discharged from the Lyttelton dry-dock, the abundance of animals is 99.7 % lower than' their 

abundance in the water blastrun-off..·,,· ," :: ' M " ,;_,v,,~,~ ':" >. __ ..... : •• _' •• ~:' _.' "I. , • 

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

.' :.~c ~; .•... , ... ;i./·-:::t ~(,~ ~... _ ·::.cf··;· . .':,.~ . . ~; .. ' '.: . .' 

.' ... - . ~ . ".... ~ 

. '~.' 
... ... 

'-- ',' 

(d) Orams Marine 

,.-... 

aj 10000 

ui 

-H 1000 '-' 

,.-... 

~ 

0 100 

~ 

u 

s:: 10 C'j 

-0 

s:: '#.. ::J 

.D 

C'j 8 '-' OJ) "";' 0 0.1 -l 

Animals Propagules Unicellular 

organisms 

(e) Filamentous algae (rank scale of abundance) 

,.-... 

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) of animals, propagules 

(larvae, spores and eggs) and unicellular organisms in liquid samples taken at various stages 

of treatment. (e) Average rank of abundance (1- 5) offilamentous algae. Black bars: water 

blast run-off; grey bars: first chamber of settlement tanks; white bars: effluent discharged 

(N.B, this includes liquid from the final chamber of settlement tanks (Tauranga), unfiltered 

(Lyttelton) and filtered (Orams Marine) discharge. Percentages above the bars represent the 

reduction in abundance relative to concentrations in the water blast run-off. For example, in 

the effluent discharged from the Lyttelton dry-dock, the abundance of animals is 99.7 % 

lower than their abundance in the water blast run-off . 

..... -- ". -~ 

-.-.--

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

• • .~" I_~~ :: ::11, ;. ,: .. ~ ~ ~ "'~.",.:- -; 

',- l. 

~. . " 
Plate 1.1: The abundance of fouling organisms on the ship hulls examined varied widely. 

Left: abundant and diverse assemblage on the hull of the lv[acushla sampled in Auckland. 

Right: a clean and ullfo uled part of the Hebe's hull sampled ill Lyttelton. Photo: O. Floerl, 

NIWA 
Plate 1.2: Mechani cal damage from water blasting and trampling by cleani ng staff in drydock and haul-out operations resulted in damage or mortality of a high percentage of 

organisms examined. In some cases, fouling organisms were crushed and ground nearly 

beyond recognition. Photo: C. Middleton, NIW A. 
Plate 1.3: The sea chests of the Alexander Slobodchikov, cleaned in the Lyttelton dry-dock, 

contained large clumps of greenshell mussels (Pema sp.). Viable errant polychaetes and 

motile crustaceans and molluscs were common within these clumps. This picture was taken 

after approximate ly 90 % of the mussels had already been removed from the sea chest. Photo: 

O. Floerl, NIWA. 
Plate 1.4: Cleaning of the harbour tug Godley in the Lyttelton dry-dock by water bl asting. 

The pressure of the cleaning j et removed fouling organisms and the top layer of the 

underlying antifouling paint, resulting in red run-off to the settling tanks. Photo: O. Floerl, 

NlWA. 
Appendix 

.":' 

'; ~; . 

I,"_-=:". 

, ," 
~ ': ': '~,'i"::,>,, " " 

, ,-

, . ~. , 

, t. _ ~ '., 

. Table A1: Guidelines used by field staff to assess viability of fouling biota removed from vessel hulls. 

1. SESSILE TAXA 

BarnaCles 

Bivalves 

Encrusting 

bryozoans 

Frect bryozoans 

-- , ' , ".-1 '," 

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

":",; '.' , 

Indicators for live and viable individuals/colonies 

Structure: All shell plates present and intact, opercular plates present 

(acorn barnacles only - gooseneck barnacles have no opercular 

plates) 

Feeding/movement: Feeding structures (cirri) protrude out of the 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), but will close when 

poked (reacti0!1) 

Structure: Colony/fragment contains several intact zooids (check for 

animal inside against light). 

Feeding/movement: Filte'ring apparatus (Iophophore) protrude 

througJ1 opening in zooid. 

Structure: Colony/fragment contains several intact zooids (check for 

animal inside against light). 

Feeding/movement: Filtering apparatus (lophophore) protrude 

through opening in zooid. 

Indicators for non-viability of individuals/colonies 

Structure: Shel\/opercular plates and/or feeding structures (cirri) 

broken or missing. 

Feeding/movement: Feeding structures visible but motionless and 

slack and/or no reaction when poked. 

Structure: One shell missing or onelboth shells cracked or 

fragmented. 

Feeding/movement: Shells open but no reaction to touch. 

Structure: All zooids damaged/smashed, no soft tissues visible. 

And/or: all colonies dried out, loss of all moisture. And/or loss of 

pigmentation. 

Feeding/movement: Zooids' soft tissues and/or feeding structures 

may be visible but no movement or reaction to touch. 

Structure: All zooids damaged/smashed, no soft tissues visible. 

And/or: all colonies dried out, loss of all moisture. 

Feeding/movement: Feeding structures may be visible but no 

movement or reaction to touch. 

:',;: L ,:.;""; ;,\:, Colonial ascidians Structure: Colony/fragment in reasonable 'shape', moist to the touch Structure: Shredded or crushed 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 or gashes, not crushed flat or Structure: Test badly damaged, crushed or deformed. Branchial 

., "i, .', ','\-, .. ,'':'' , severely deformed. Moist, not dried. basket exposed and/or damaged, guts hanging out. And/or colony 

, t:~"/ ' .. J;)'J:,':~;,': :'t" r '.~:.':' . ',', Feeding/movement: Inhalant and/or exhalant siphons open but close dried out, loss of all 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 (assessment of 

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: Body reasonably intact, feeding polyps (often at distal 

ends ofbraches) present. 

Feeding/movement: Feeding tentacles exposed. 

Structure: Intact (body within tube), not crushed, no holes or gashes. 

Feeding/movement: Worm retracts into tube when poked (reaction), 

and/or feeding structures (tentacular crown) visible and moving. 

Structure: Fragments retain natural colour, firm texture (don't fall 

apart). Sponges retain a "fleshy I translucent 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~ or other unusual external structures). 

Feeding/movement: nla 

Visible movement I 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 or parts of it present (can regenerate from that), body (or 

whatever's present) has natural shape, not crushed. 

Visible movement I reaction, especially feeding limbs will beat if 

submerged and alive. Missing limbs no problem unless all are gone. 

Carapace intact. 

Indicators for non-viability of individuals/colonies 

Structure: All polyps damaged/smashed. And/or colony dried out, 

loss of all moisture. 

Feeding/movement: Feeding structures may be visible but no 

movement or reaction to touch. 

Structure: Tube missing, loss of tentacular crown, body badly 

crushed or lacerated. And/or dried out, loss of all moisture. 

Feeding/movement: Feeding structures may be visible but no 

movement or reaction to touch . 

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

a mass of golden fibres I hair-like structures without "translucent 

fleshy tissue" between the fibres. And/or colony dried out, loss of all 

moisture. Usually no chance for survival ifremoved from water for 

more than 3 hours. 

Feeding/movement: Impossible to observe. 

Structure: Badly crushed, fragmented, or faded (loss of pigments). 

Feeding/movement: nla 

All limbs or both pincers missing. Carapace damaged (e.g. large 

holes or parts missing). No movement / reaction to touch. Loss of 

moisture - dried out. 

Body damaged, crushed or lacerated. No movement I reaction to 

touch. Loss of moisture - dried out. 

Arm only without part of basal disc (can't regenerate), body 

damaged, crushed or lacerated. No movement / reaction to touch. 

All limbs or feeding structures missing. Carapace damaged (e.g. 

large holes or parts missing). No movement I reaction to touch. Loss 

of moisture - 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 

Gulf Harbour Marina 

- [ .' ., 

,', I .' 

No. 2 (name n/a) 

Sympatica 

Lady Thrtodora 

Moana Ariki 

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 

o 

CoD 

+ 

§ 

(3 

u 

.~ 

(3 

V> 

Cl) 

~ I:: 

o 

0. 

V> 

Cl) 

~ u 

+ + 

Cl) 

"0 

o 

0. 

o 

~ 

+ + 

+ 

+ 

+ + + + + + + 

+ + 

+ + + + + 

+ + + 

+ + + + 

+ 

+ + + 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ + 

+ + 

+ + + 

+ + 

+ + 

+ 

+ + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ + + + + 

+ 

+ + + 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ + + + + + + + + + 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ + + 

+ t 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ + 

+ 

+ + + 

+ 

+ 

+ + 

+ + + + + 

+ + + + + 

+ + + + + 

+ + + + + 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ + 

+ 

+ + 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Cl) 

fa 

~ Q) 

E 

Z 

+ + 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 
TableA3 Summary of projects under the Marine Waste Reception Facilities Program funded by the Australian Government. The programme 

assisted with up to 50% of the cost of installing upgraded facilities for the management and treatment of marine wastes at a 

number of ports and marinas throughout Australia. 

Facility Operations Current treatment Proposed upgrade . 50% Cose 

M~Lean Slipway Vessel No wastewater collection • upgrade slipway $19600 

maintenance & or treatment • install collection drain and silt trap 

cleaning • seal washdown area to 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 sand trap containment of solid and 

liquid waste contaminants 

Harwood slipway and Vessel servicing No containment of • install sand trap containment of solid and $21 593 

engineering facility and maintenance slipway waste liquid waste 

Clontarf Marina Vessel repainting Not specified • construct concrete containment area to $100000 

collect washdown wastes ,f, • residues collected and screened to a 

, !.' " standard allowing discharge to the Sydney . . ~ ; . 

i.: ' Water sewerage system 

, Bermagui Marine Services Cleaning & Not specified • install concrete containment area around $34985 1 " ' ..... ' • " \-

, painting of vessels slipway ' , ' ':: . ~ 

,,'" ,-'. 

,~, ,:: ,'r~:;.';;: 

,c:, ' " ;), ~' :"~,: " ~:, ' •• ! 

" , , , " up to 70 ft pump collected material to a separation ' , : • , ' . ' , 

system (a Static Separator Polisher) ! ., . : • upgrade sewage collection system 

~oyal ~,ri~ce Alfred Yacht Vessel Not specified • install submersible pumps located in $50000 

Club: maintenance grated solids pits 

, '~.' .' , • : { ~ install a holding tank, an oil/water 

{', . . , ,> , separator, a recycled water storage tank and • '1 , 1. .. " pressurised recycled water outlets ,~",~ ," , 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 - '" 

., -., ' , 

Bundaberg Port Marina 

Whyte Island Qperations 

Bases, Port of Brisbane 

Careening for No containment of wastes • move careening area to above the high $50000 

vessel maintenance water mark. 

• install 15 tonne straddle lift 

• develop careening area next to hardstand 

area. 

• contain wastewater from vessel 

maintenance and pump into settlement tanks 

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 collected in two sullage contaminated water into a 5000 litre cone 

pits shaped sullage tank. 

• chemically treat water to settle heavy 

metals to the bottom of the cone. 

• install separate 1600 litre sludge tank. 

Slipway facility for Poor containment of • install dedicated wash-down area to $13 320 

recreational, untreated waste water contain wastewater. 

charter & fishing • install triple interceptor pit system to 

vessels treat the wastewater before disposal to 

sewerage. 

Marina Planned expansion to • install concrete washdown area $47000 

include hardstand & travel • install triple interceptor pits 

lift • install Geotech vertical sand and 

activated carbon filtration unit. 

• install boat sewage pump out facility 

Washdown facility Inadequate containment of • install 'high tech' washdown pad $24500 

for Port vessels & wastewater • full containment of wastewater 
" . " '. " , 

.. -.,' ... 

,1<'" • ~ , < '" 

'J' !~. : 'i ',I , • '. ' - equipment • install oil trap and tanks to hold .~::. J' , " - : 

. ,. " wastewater for appropriate treatment. 

Tropical Reef Shipyar~ Pty Slipway for vessels Inadequate containment of • install tidal gates to prevent inundation of $50000 , .~ .. :. ; Ltd up to 3000 t wastewater slipway 

• install settling tank for waste water ,", treatment for disposal to sewer 

D~M Slipway Pty Ltd Servicing & Two slipways: one with • install settling tank & pump $65000 

maintenance of fully contained treatment, • install evaporation pit 

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 system for discharging treated 

water to 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 Slipway for Slipway waste currently • upgrade wash down area to ensure full $72685 

recreational vessels returned to the sea containment of wastewater 

• install pump & Novachem treatment and 

recycling system to remove all contaminants 

from the wastewater, which will then be held , .' , , for reuse. , 

P~rt of Apollo Bay Slipway Slipway for Limited containment of • install waste interception structure on $25000 

maintenance of marine waste slipway to trap 
fishing & • install settling tanks and an oil/water 

recreational vessels separator for disposal to sewer. 

Port of Geqlldton Hardstand Drydock for fishing No containment of • install trapping facilities at the hardstand $15200 

boats contaminants • commence regular wat~r and sediment 

monitoring programs 

I All estImates represent the AustralIan government contnbutIon In AustralIan dollars 

.;, j 

"~. , 

.:' .- f .J , ,~ ". ,~ 

, I 'r;, I 

~. .... . 

,:' -! I-

.1,_ 

'" 

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

., :;' ::' ,,<,"i: !~ble A4 Reproduced from the USEPA Storm Water Runoff Management Measure for Marinas and Recreational Boating (Chapter 5 USEPA 

.• , • ' .. ':'.:),.",' ,,' ! 840,-B-92-002, Table 5.3 - Stormwater Management Practice Summary Information). 

':'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 % 

of capital cost 

per year 

Of Capital 

costs: 

Basins = 3-13% 

Trenches = 

5-15% 

Retrofit 

Suitability 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

(In USEPA 840-8-

92-002) 

City of Austin, 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 per acre 

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 linear ft. 

Sod: 

US$8.50 per 

linear ft. 

US$1100-3000 

Retrofit 

Suitability 

Low 

High 

High 

High 

High 

References 

(In USEPA 840-8-

92-002) 

Schueler, 1987; 

SWRPC, 1991; Cahill 

Associates, 1991 

Schueler et al. 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.