A Survey of Pumpout Installation,
Operation, and Maintenance Costs
A Focus on the Gulf of Mexico Region
KEEP OUR
WATIR CLIAN-
USEPUMPQUK
August 2000
/
,
-------
1.0 Introduction
Since 1992 the Clean Vessel Act (CVA) Program has provided at least 75 percent of the
costs to install 2,200 pumpouts and 1,400 dumpstations nationwide (USFWS 2000). However,
the Gulf of Mexico Program Partnership has recognized a continuing reluctance to participate in
the CVA Program by some marina owners and operators in the five Gulf States. The primary
reason given for non-participation is an incomplete understanding of the total costs to install,
operate, and maintain a pumpout over the long-term.
This project attempted to determine these costs based on experiences of selected Gulf-region
marinas that have participated in the CVA Program. Battelle conducted detailed interviews with
representatives from 12 private and public marinas. The large majority of the marinas were
located in coastal areas. In order to characterize the full range of pumpout installation options,
three of the interviewed marinas were not located in the Gulf-region (two in North Carolina and
one on the east coast of Florida). Battelle also interviewed several state CVA Program
Coordinators and representatives from several
pumpout manufacturers (e.g., Edson®, Waubaushene3
and Jonny-Trap®). This report summarizes cost
information and cost-related anecdotal information I »s^ -
associated with installing, operating, and maintaining r" h^^^K^
a pumpout, and makes several recommendations for [ P^fJ LJr r£kJtfl
program improvements.
W < '-'•' ' " M^^r'''
IB.
2.0 Background
Congress passed the Clean Vessel Act in 1992 to
provide pumpout and dumpstation sewage disposal
facilities to recreational boaters, as an alternative to
overboard disposal. The Act established a 5-year
federal grant program administered by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and authorized $40
million for use by the states. Congress re-authorized
the Clean Vessel Act in 1998, extending the CVA
Program through 2003, and provided an additional $50
million.
The Act makes federal grants available to state
CVA programs on a competitive basis. Priorities for
funding include state programs that (1) provide
public/private partnerships, (2) provide innovative
ways to increase availability and use of pumpout
stations, (3) include an education component, (4) have
an approved plan (coastal states), (5) benefit waters
most likely affected by sewage discharges, and (6)
Pumpouts Cost Survey
Page 2
-------
target areas with high vessel/pumpout station ratios. States may sub-grant funds to public and
publicly accessible private marinas for the construction, renovation, operation, and maintenance
of pumpouts and dumpstations. Federal funds can constitute up to 75 percent of all approved
project costs with the remaining funds provided by the states or marinas. A maximum fee of $5
may be charged for use of pumpout facilities constructed or maintained with CVA grant funds.
All states are encouraged to use some grant funds for education efforts, and coastal states can use
grant funds for surveys and plans.
3.0 Interview Methodology
Contact information for potential marina interviewees was solicited from CVA Program
Coordinators in the five Gulf States and North Carolina. Marinas had to have a least one
pumpout or dumpstation installed though their state CVA program. Interviews, subject to the
willingness of participating marina representatives, were purposefully targeted to represent (1) a
variety of marina locations, sizes, and ownership (i.e., public versus private), and (2) a variety
pumpout installations, staffing situations, and sewage disposal options. Twelve interviews were
conducted (see Appendix A for the interview questions). Appendix B provides general
information about each interviewed marina and a summary of each interview.
To obtain answers for each of the 24 questions, and gain unsolicited anecdotal information at
the same time, interviews were conducted in an informal conversational style. A written
summary of the interview was promptly faxed to each interviewee, to provide the opportunity to
add information or correct any inaccuracies. In general, all interviewees were enthusiastic about
sharing information. In an effort to keep interviews short and flowing, estimates and
approximations were accepted for all questions. In several cases interviewees returned the
interview summary with cost corrections or exact figures.
Appendix C provides cost information, in a case study format, from two previous
assessments of the CVA Program.
4.0 Interview Results
General
Six of the interviewed marinas were privately owned and operated, one was publicly owned
but privately managed, and five were publicly owned and operated. In general it was found that
the marina owners and operators provide pumpout service (1) as part of the full suite of boater
services and (2) because of a genuine interest in and commitment to the environment. Most
agree with the premise of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) document
Clean Marinas - Clear Value, that environmentally conscious decisions will positively affect a
marina's bottom line. At the same time, no marinas installed a pumpout with the expectation of
it being profitable.
Pumpouts Cost Survey Page 3
-------
All interviewed marinas were CVA grant recipients, and had received funding for at least 75
percent of the total project costs for at least one pumpout. Most interviewees indicated that they
had little trouble with the application and award processes, which were described by one
applicant as "user friendly". However, one interviewee found the process to be extremely time-
consuming and described it as a "bureaucratic nightmare." This particular interviewee estimated
that he spent more than 30 hours preparing and submitting the CVA application. The difference
in attitudes about the process is likely related to the applicant's experience. The state CVA
Program Coordinator can determine the level of assistance that will be required by assessing the
experience and needs of each applicant.
Results of the survey demonstrate that installing a pumpout does not guarantee use. At two
of the 12 interviewed marinas, usage is at or below one pumpout per month. In general, marinas
with the highest pumpout usage (1) actively remind regular slip customers about the need for
regular pumpout service, (2) actively "advertise" pumpout service at the fuel dock or other
service areas (for example, by posting pumpout program logo signs), and (3) provide mobile or
slip-side service in addition to service at the fuel dock.
Even though most marinas reported low or negligible operation and maintenance costs, there
does appear to be considerable confusion among program participants about the reimbursement
eligibility of these costs through the CVA Program. Similarly, most marinas were confused
about the reimbursement eligibility of dedicated sewage treatment system costs and expenses for
pumping and hauling sewage from holding tanks. Other areas of ambiguity include requirements
for filing quarterly reports and keeping usage logs.
The majority of interviews indicated that perspective CVA Program participants would
benefit greatly from two additions to the grant application package: (1) a document that
summarizes reimbursable costs and (2) a document, possibly in the form of "Frequently Asked
Questions," that provides case studies and typical costs of installing, operating, and maintaining
a pumpout.
Installation Costs
Interviewees were asked to estimate the total cost of installing their sewage reception
facilities, including engineering, permitting, equipment, and installation. Installation cost is
dependent on a wide variety of factors, hopefully well-representing the 12 interviewed marinas.
Costs for a simple pumpout with direct access to a central sewer system ranged from $3,000 to
$15,000 (see Table 1). Mr. Jan Delaney, Florida CVA Program Coordinator, reported that the
average cost for pumpout equipment, engineering, and installation in his state is about $16,000
for a stationary pumpout and $35,000 for a boat-mounted pumpout. On the high end, multi-unit
installations (some combination of stationary, cart-based, trailer-based, and boat-based units) and
central unit installations requiring construction of electricity, water, and sewer lines over
relatively long (>100 ft) distances, were found to cost upwards of $35,000 to $75,000 (see Table
1).
Relatively high installation costs were associated with remote locations and/or lack of direct
access to sewage treatment. For example, Cypress Cove Marina, located in Venice, Louisiana,
Pumpouts Cost Survey Page 4
-------
reported installation costs of $63,000. According the Herb Holloway, Louisiana CVA Program
Coordinator, Cypress Cove's high costs can be attributed to the marina's remote location, the
distance between the end of the dock and access to sewage treatment, and the fact that only one
company bid for the installation work. In combination, these factors contributed to one of the
highest recorded installation costs in Louisiana. Similarly, Bill Turner, Director of the
Matagorda Navigation District No. 1, attributed high pumpout installation costs at his facility
($50,000 to $75,000) to the remote location of the pier.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance costs varied according to several factors (e.g., equipment type,
amount of use, and service mechanism), but averaged $100 per year at 11 of the 12 interviewed
marinas (ranging from negligible to $500 per year) (see Table 1). Hose deterioration due to sun
exposure was the most common maintenance expense. As expected, operation and maintenance
costs seem well correlated with pumpout usage. The highest annual operating and maintenance
costs - over $14,000 for two stationary pumpouts and one boat-mounted pumpout - were
reported at Halifax Harbor Marina in Daytona Beach, Florida. This is attributed to a very high
relative volume of pumpout sewage collected (around 7000 gallons per month) and operation
and maintenance of the boat providing mobile service (approximately 80 percent of the 7000
gallons is collected by the pumpout boat). It should be noted that both pumpout usage and
operation and maintenance costs at Halifax Harbor Marina are much higher than other marinas in
this survey.
In general it was found that self-serve units required more maintenance dollars than staffed
pumpouts. It appears that some types of equipment require less maintenance and have less
expensive parts than other types. Diaphragm pumps, for example, were reported to be sensitive
to shells and bottle caps, whereas such holding tank debris does not affect vacuum pumps. John
King, Harbour Village Marina in Hempstead, North Carolina, reported that such debris is
responsible for approximately three $300 repairs per year for his diaphragm pump. In fact, an
overall preference for vacuum pumps over diaphragm pumps was noted in the interviews.
A representative from Edson® brand pumpouts suggested that manufacturers can often design
a pumpout to meet the specific needs of a marina, such as a more durable self-serve unit or a
high volume unit. All pumpout manufacturers interviewed for this study agreed that a pumpout
system tailored to the needs of the marina will save on maintenance and replacement costs in the
long-term.
Vandalism, Theft, and Liability
None of the 12 interviewed marinas experienced any theft or vandalism of a pumpout. Even
at self-serve units in the most remote locations, theft and vandalism were not reported. While
many interviewees could foresee the potential for liability at a self-serve unit, most had not had
nor heard of any such occurrences. If the need arose, several interviewees felt that a clause in the
slip contract, or a "Use at Own Risk" sign, would protect them from liability claims. Mr. George
Wakefield from the Halifax Harbor Marina in Daytona Beach, Florida indicated that his marina
was held liable for a pumpout that was used to pump oily bilge water into the municipal sewer
Pumpouts Cost Survey Page 5
-------
system. The pumpouts at Halifax Harbor are staffed, but the boater directed the attendant to the
wrong tank. As a result, the policy at Halifax Harbor Marina has been changed to prohibit
pumping from unlabeled tanks.
Staffed Service Versus Self-Serve Pumpouts
Seven of the interviewed marinas provided staffed pumpout service, one provided both
staffed and self-serve units, and four others provided only self-serve units (see Table 1). Costs
for providing staffed pumpout service were difficult for interviewees to itemize. It was generally
felt that adding staffed pumpout service, where fuel-pumping service was already provided, did
not add noticeably to operating costs.
It is interesting to note that most of the marinas that offer staffed pumpout service feel very
strongly that staffing is both necessary for the marina and the customer. While few problems
were reported with the self-serve situations, several interviewees conceded that their self-serve
units required more maintenance and replacement parts because of misuse or uninformed
customers; at the same time, they felt that the level of damage was acceptable.
Mr. Neil Ross, a well-know clean marina advocate from the Marine Environmental
Education Foundation, contends that in order to have a positive experience, marinas must
address the "three Cs" of pumpout operation: Care, Custody, and Control. He feels strongly that
all pumpouts should be staffed, conveniently located, and easily operated, and that adequate
funding for routine maintenance should be budgeted. Mr. Ross' experience leads him to believe
that addressing the "three Cs" would also greatly reduce any likelihood of vandalism, theft, or
liability.
Sewage Disposal
Pumpouts at 10 of the interviewed marinas were connected to a municipal sewage collection
line and treatment facility. The other two marinas were connected to package plant treatment
systems, primarily constructed for use by facilities other than the pumpouts (e.g., restrooms,
restaurants, hotels). Considerable effort was expended to identify marinas in the Gulf region that
used an onsite sewage treatment system or a holding tank/sewage-hauling service to treat or
dispose of sewage from pumpouts, but none was found.
Several CVA Program Coordinators indicated that marinas interested in installing pumpouts
are quickly dissuaded by the lack of a proximate connection to municipal sewage treatment.
This limitation often occurs in remote coastal areas. Mr. Herb Holloway, Louisiana CVA
Program Coordinator, views the lack of access to sewage treatment in coastal Louisiana as one of
the most serious problems facing prospective participants in his state. The cost of sewage
hauling in some areas of Louisiana is prohibitively high, from $0.25 to $0.50 per gallon. Mr.
Holloway suggested that research into sewage treatment standards and requirements for pumpout
sewage, and inexpensive systems to meet those requirements would be very worthwhile. Ms.
Elizabeth Bensey, a representative from the City of Pascagoula, Mississippi, expressed similar
concerns. Her conversations with area boaters reflect a need for more pumpouts on local rivers
and bays, but she has found that installation in areas without direct access to sewer lines is
Pumpouts Cost Survey Page 6
-------
prohibitively expensive. The use of CVA grants for purchasing and installing a dedicated onsite
sewage treatment system or holding tank (and regular sewage-hauling service) should be
advocated as alternatives to municipal system connections.
5.0 Recommended Actions
• Provide a document that summarizes reimbursable costs in the CVA grant application
package.
• Provide a document, possibly in the form of "Frequently Asked Questions," that provides
examples of installation and operation set-ups and costs, and the long-term costs of operating
and maintaining a pumpout, in the CVA grant application package.
• Promote the use of CVA grants for purchasing and installing dedicated onsite sewage
treatment systems or holding tanks (and regular sewage-hauling services) as alternatives to
municipal system connections.
6.0 Acknowledgements
This report was prepared for the USEPA's Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Center,
Mississippi, by Jeanine Boyle and Brent Ache, Battelle, Coastal Resource and Ecosystems
Management, New Orleans, Louisiana, under USEPA Contract Number 68-68-C-00-121. The
mention of trade names or commercial products does not in any way constitute an endorsement
or recommendation for use.
The authors and the Gulf of Mexico Program would like to thank the many individuals that
contributed to this report. We would like to thank the following state CVA Program
Coordinators who directed us to likely marina interview candidates and shared their related
experiences: Jan DeLaney, Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Ed Poolos,
Alabama Department of Environmental Management; Rhonda Price, Mississippi Department of
Marine Resources; Herb Holloway, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; Tim
Hogsett, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; and Mike Lopanzanski, North Carolina
Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources. Valuable contacts and
experiences were also contributed by Timothy Ransom, Puget Sound Water Quality Action
Team, and Garrett Wallace, St. Johns River Water Management District (Florida).
Neil Ross, Marine Environmental Education Foundation, generously shared his time and
experience. Mr. Ross' studies of the marina industry, including Clean Marinas - Clear Value
(published by USEPA) and American Success Stories (published by USFWS) were valuable
resources for this project.
Of course the report could not have been developed without contributions from the
interviewed marina owners and operators. Each interviewee responded with enthusiasm and an
admirable commitment to the environment. We extend our sincere thanks to: George Wakefield,
Halifax Harbor Marina; Sonny Eirich, Cypress Cove Marina; John King, Harbour Village
Pumpouts Cost Survey Page 7
-------
Marina; Foster Anderson, Lakepoint State Park Marina; Mike Hancock, Clearwater Municipal
Marina; Harold Osborn, Broadwater Marina; Carlisle Harrell, Town of Columbia Marina; David
Keyser, Mariner's Village Marina; Bob Schwartz, Dog River Marina; Rich Spinks, Island
Moorings Marina; Bill Turner, Matagorda Navigation District No. 1; and Elizabeth Bensey, City
of Pascagoula.
Graphic and Photo Credits:
Pumpout program symbol: USFWS, http://fa.r9.fws.gov/info/falogos.html#CVA_symbol
Stationary pumpout picture: USEPA, http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/marinas/ch3.html
Trailer pumpout picture: USEPA, http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/marinas/chll.html
Handcart pumpout picture: USEPA, http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/marinas/chl2.html
7.0 References
Ross, Neil W. 1997. The Clean Vessel Act of 1992 Pumpout Grant Program: American Success
Stories. A publication of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 1997.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Clean Marinas - Clear Value:
Environmental and Business Success Stories. EPA/841 -R-96-003. August 1996.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Clean Vessel Act Program website at
http://fa.r9.fws.gov/cva/cva.html#P. Accessed in June 2000.
Pumpouts Cost Survey Page 8
-------
Table 1. Comparison of Pumpout Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Costs at 12 Public and Private Marinas
Marina Name
and Location
Broadwater Marina
Biloxi, MS
Clearwater Municipal Marina
Clearwater, FL
Cypress Cove Marina
Venice, LA
Dog River Marina
Mobile AL
Halifax Harbor Marina
Daytona Beach, FL
Harbor Village Marina
Hampstead, NC
Island Moorings Marina
Port Aransas, TX
Lakepoint State Park Marina
Lake Eufaula, AL
Mariner's Village Marina
Mandeville, LA
Matagorda County
Navigation District No. 1
Palacios, TX
Inner Harbor Marina
Pascagoula, MS
Town Pier
Columbia, NC
No. of
Boat
Slips
118
150
200
70
550
200
285
200
175
400 ***
31
2
docks
Public or
Private
Entity
Private
Public
Private
Private
Privately
managed,
city
owned
Private
Private
Public
Private
Public
Public
Public
Pumpout Equipment
1 stationary Waubaushene® vacuum
1 central Waubaushene® vacuum
system, with slip-side pumpouts
1 stationary Keco® vacuum
1 mobile (trailer) Keco® vacuum
1 dumpstation Keco®
1 stationary Sealand® vacuum
2 stationary Waubaushene® vacuum
1 mobile (boat) Waubaushene®
vacuum
1 stationary Edson® vacuum
1 stationary Sealand® diaphragm
(currently out of service)
1 stationary Edson® vacuum
1 mobile Edson® vacuum
1 stationary Jonny-Trap® vacuum
1 stationary Edson® vacuum
1 stationary Keco® vacuum
1 stationary Sani-Service® diaphragm
1 stationary Jonny-Trap vacuum
Total Installation
Cost (Percent
Covered by Grant)
$7,000 - 7,500
(75%)
$35,000
(75%)
$63,000 for all
(75%)
$10,000
(75%)
$47,000 for all
(75%)
$10,000 -12,000 for
Edson only
(80%)
$13,000 for all
(75%)
$3,000 - 4,000
(75%)
$15,000
(75%)
$50,000 - 75,000
$10,000
$3,400
(100%)
Sewage
Disposal
Municipal
connection
Municipal
connection
Onsite
package plant
Municipal
connection
Municipal
connection
Municipal
connection
Municipal
connection
Onsite lagoon
and package
plant
Municipal
connection
Municipal
connection
Municipal
connection
Municipal
connection
Staffing
Staffed
Self-serve
Staffed
Staffed
Staffed
Self-serve
Both
Self-serve
Staffed
Staffed
Self-serve
Staffed
Estimated
Usage*
20 pumpouts /
mo.
120 pumpouts
/mo.
Low
20-30
pumpouts /
mo.
7000gal. / mo.
30-100
pumpouts /mo.
(busy season)
120-140
pumpouts /mo.
40 pumpouts
/mo. (busy
season)
7-10"
pumpouts /mo.
1
pumpout/mo.
Regular use
from slip
customers
1-2 pumpouts
/yr.
Estimated
Annual O&M
Costs*
$50
<$200
Negligible
<$50
$14,000
(the boat is
costly to run
and maintain)
$500
Negligible
$50
$60**
Negligible
$100
Negligible
Vandalism/
Theft/
Liability
History
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
' Includes all pumpouts and dumpstations at the marina.
** Based on past 10 years of use of one stationary Keco® diaphragm pump.
*** Primarily a commercial port for shrimp boats.
------- |