PERFORMANCE TESTING OF ON-SITE

DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT UNITS

– THE ON-SITE EFFLUENT TREATMENT
NATIONAL TESTING PROGRAMME
Ian Gunn
SWANS-SIG (Small Wastewater and Natural Systems Special Interest Group), Water New Zealand

ABSTRACT

The OSET NTP (On-site Effluent Treatment National Testing Programme) is a SWANS-SIG initiative which
has evaluated the performance of 21 treatment units in Trials 3 to 8 (2007 to 2013) via a nine month testing
programme in each trial. Of the 17 systems currently available commercially, all systems met the 90%
performance requirements of AS/NZS 1547:2012 for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5) and total suspended
solids (TSS), but only 47% achieved 100% for both parameters. Benchmarking of 16 test results from Weeks 23
to 35 of the test programme for five chemical parameters, faecal coliforms and average daily energy use shows
the relative performance for all treatment systems. These results enable a comparison of overall performance
rating, treatment process stability, aeration effectiveness, nitrogen reduction and energy consumption. The
ongoing success of the OSET NTP will depend on more council Funding Partners joining up to contribute grants
towards management and auditing costs.

KEYWORDS

On-site wastewater, treatment performance, effluent quality testing, benchmarking

1 INTRODUCTION
The On-Site Effluent Treatment National Testing Programme (OSET NTP) was set up during 2008 based on the
OSET Testing Facility (TestFac) at the Rotorua City wastewater treatment plant (WTP). Its genesis was the
nitrogen reduction testing programme established in 2005 by Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) in
association with Waikato Regional Council (WRC) and Rotorua District Council (RDC) to performance test
household domestic wastewater treatment plants (OSET units) for installation in the Rotorua Lakes and Lake
Taupo catchments. BOPRC had set a requirement for total nitrogen (TN) discharges from on-site wastewater
systems serving development around the Rotorua Lakes at 15g/m 3 TN and WRC had a similar requirement for
lakeside development around Lake Taupo, but at the limit of 25g/m3 TN.

The objective of the BOPRC/WRC/RDC testing programme was to verify claims from manufacturers/suppliers
re the nitrogen reduction capability of their OSET units. With over 35 companies marketing such units
throughout NZ and with many of these claiming to meet or better the nitrogen reduction targets of BOPRC and
WRC, both regional councils were concerned that approved systems should verify their performance via a 9
month testing trial at the TestFac set up for this purpose at the RDC WTP.

SWANS-SIG (the Small Wastewater and Natural Systems Special Interest Group of Water NZ) had meanwhile
been looking at nationwide performance of OSET systems and noted concerns expressed by several regional
councils regarding the treatment performance levels and hardware integrity of OSET systems. As a first step
toward improving these matters SWANS-SIG approached BOPRC and RDC with a proposal to adapt and utilise
the Rotorua TestFac for a national testing programme. This recognised that secondary treatment systems and
dripline land application was being widely adopted nationwide to replace septic tank and soakage trench systems
for rural residential subdivisions, and that the performance capability of treatment systems was based only on
manufacturers claims.

Rather than concentrate testing on just the nitrogen reduction capability of OSET units the OSET NTP was set
up to assess treatment performance against the secondary treatment requirements of AS/NZS 1547:2012 On-site
domestic wastewater management and to benchmark treatment capability for five chemical and one
bacteriological parameter plus energy use. The intention is to provide a performance rating for OSET units that
can assist councils and consumers to better understand the treatment capabilities of systems currently on the
market.

2 ORGANISATION AND FUNDING

2.1 ESTABLISHMENT

SWANS-SIG has a membership involving engineers, scientists, planners, lawyers, manufacturers, researchers
and regulators specialising in wastewater management, and as a professional association interest group has no
source of funds. To set up a grass roots testing programme required negotiations with the Ministry for the
Environment, the Water Managers Group of Water NZ (representing local authorities), BOPRC and RDC.
Establishment funding grants were obtained from the first three agencies, with RDC, based on experience with
the initial nitrogen testing platforms for Trials 1 and 2 in 2005 through to 2007, investing a substantial sum in
upgrading the OSET TestFac to improve the operational and testing systems. The 2007/2008 nitrogen reduction
Trial 3 was undertaken at the upgraded facility and provided far greater consistency and reliability in the testing
outcomes than Trials 1 and 2.

OSET NTP establishment funding in 2008 was used to produce (via consultants) a set of testing procedures for
approval by SWANS-SIG, with the first trial under OSET NTP operations in 2008/2009 being Trial 4. SWANS-
SIG also used 2008 to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Water NZ, BOPRC, RDC and
SWANS-SIG. Each MoU partner provides a representative on the Partners Advisory Group (MoU-PAG) which
meets annually to review OSET NTP activities and approve budgets. Operational oversight is provided by
SWANS-MAG, the management and audit group set up by SWANS-SIG to oversee the work of the team
responsible for day to day operations and to undertake auditing and reporting of testing results. Figure 1 sets out
the organisational structure of the OSET NTP

2.2 FUNDING

Income to operate the OSET NTP comes from testing fees from Trial participating companies plus grants from
council Funding Partners.

The testing fee for manufacturers/suppliers submitting their ex-factory OSET units for benchmarking at the
Rotorua TestFac covers site rental and power costs plus laboratory testing with a small portion contributing to
management and auditing costs. The bulk of management and auditing is covered by council Funding Partner
grants. BOPRC and RDC have been the key Funding Partners since inception with cash and/or support in kind
via staff time allocations. Grant payments at $5,000 (regional council), $3,000 (unitary council) and $1,500
(district council) have provided the funds to cover management and auditing costs. During 2009 to 2013 some
eleven to thirteen councils have joined BOPRC and RDC in annual support. However, the funding grant base is
fragile. The current level of grants support nominal payments for technical management and honoraria to the
independent members of SWANS-MAG.

The ongoing success of the OSET NTP is very much dependant on the voluntary component of the contribution
of the team involved in management and audit, and additional council Funding Partner support is urgently
needed to maintain current operational activity and ongoing development of the testing programme. In return for
their support Funding Partners receive copies of all testing reports along with a comparative results review for
each Trial. This comparative results review is restricted to council Funding Partners only, and aggregates the
results of the test reports on each individual OSET unit in a Trial into a single report.

The value for Funding Partner councils from the set of test reports and the comparative results overview is that
judgments can be made on treatment process stability to set alongside the benchmark performance ratings for
individual units. The OSET NTP testing covers 9 months late spring through summer, autumn and into mid-
winter, and offers a unique view of seasonal performance under warm and cold conditions. For a council
consenting officer, the treatment unit stability as shown by seasonal performance variations can provide
guidance on the extent of maintenance inspections and effluent quality checks which may need to be set under
consent conditions for discharges from a specific treatment unit.
3 TESTING PROGRAMME
3.1 PERFORMANCE AND INTEGRITY TESTING

Three strands of testing are undertaken by the OSET NTP. Figure 2 summarises the overall OSET NTP testing
and auditing process.

Strand 1 ex-factory unit trials are undertaken at the Rotorua TestFac. The occupied test platforms pictured in
Figure 3 show uninsulated units. Units are now fully insulated to represent installation in the ground. Trials 4
(2008/2009) to 8 (2012/2013) under OSET NTP management and audit have had 17 units tested.

A Strand 2 field testing pilot study is underway during 2014 in Canterbury to evaluate testing protocols and
establish the required number of test results needed for field test performance verification for a specific treatment
unit which already holds benchmark certification and rating. Field performance testing of ten Oasis Clearwater
OSET systems certified under Trial 3 (2007/2008) involves sampling and testing each system on four occasions
at three month intervals.

Strand 3 product integrity testing requires an Australian certification authority visit and assessment, and to date
no NZ company has sought such certification. However, some systems marketed in NZ from Australian
suppliers already have Australian certification as has one NZ company marketing in Australia.

3.2 TESTING PROCEDURE

The Strand 1 AS/NZS 1547 and benchmark testing programme runs for 9 months from October in year 1 to July
in year 2. Each OSET unit receives 1,000L/day of screened raw domestic wastewater in two doses of 500L
spread over 4 hours, with varying incremental amounts to mimic household daily wastewater outputs.

The testing timeline for Trial 8 (2012/2013) is set out in Figure 4. Following the settling in period Weeks 1 to 8,
test sampling commences Week 9 with samples at six day intervals for Weeks 9 to 35. From Week 36 a high
load trial comprising 5 days at 2,000L/day returning to 1,000L/day in Week 37 is used to evaluation high load
effects on the treatment system for the final 3 weeks. The timeline shows the 12 physical and chemical
characteristics along with bacteriological quality (faecal coliforms – FC) being tested. Energy use in operating
aeration devices and a final effluent pump (to replicate the dosing of a drip irrigation line) is recorded.

4 TESTING OBJECTIVES
4.1 AS/NZS 1547:2012 EFFLUENT QUALITY PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

The test results for Weeks 9 to 35 are used to evaluate the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5) and total
suspended solids (TSS) effluent quality in achieving the secondary treatment performance requirements of
AS/NZS 1547:2012. These requirements are that:
 When sampled and tested for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 90% of samples shall have a BOD 5 of
less than or equal to 20 g/m3 with no sample greater than 30 g/m 3.
 When sampled and tested for total suspended solids (TSS) 90% of samples shall have a TSS of less than
or equal to 30 g/m 3 with no sample greater than 45 g/m3.

A total of 37 samples are generally available for assessment during each trial, the six day samples being
supplemented by 6 additional samples from a consecutive five day sampling sequence in each of Weeks 17 and
29 (Figure 4).

4.2 BENCHMARKING

Sixteen test results for Weeks 23 to 35 are used to develop a benchmark rating for 5 chemical parameters, being
BOD5, TSS, total nitrogen (TN), ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N), and total phosphorus. Ten faecal coliform (FC)
samples are also rated, along with average daily power consumption for the 13 week benchmarking period.
Ratings are based on the median of test results and assigned a letter grade according to parameter ranges. An
example set of rating results is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Example Performance Rating

Indicator Parameters Median Std Dev Rating Rating System

A+ A B C D
BOD5 (g/m3) 2 0.69 A+ <5 <10 <20 <30 ≥30
TSS (g/m3) 7 2.16 A <5 <10 <20 <30 ≥30
TN (g/m3) 37 5.16 D <5 <15 <25 <30 ≥30
3
NH4-N (g/m ) 0.4 0.043 A+ <1 <5 <10 <20 ≥20
TP (g/m3) 3.6 0.28 B <1 <2 <5 <7 ≥7
FC(cfu/100mL) 9,400 15,300 B <10 <200 <10,000 <100,000 ≥100,000
Energy (kWh/d) (mean) 0.98 A 0 <1 <2 <5 ≥5

Of significance is the standard deviation for the test results for each parameter, as this provides an indication of
the stability of the treatment process. However, a full understanding of treatment performance variation from
week to week throughout the testing programme is only available from examining the test reports. These reports
are issued separately to each company involved in testing, and collectively to each Funding Partner. The public
has access to a one page performance certificate for each treatment unit tested via the OSET NTP web pages on
the Water NZ web site; to see a full report on any system they will need to contact the manufacturer/supplier
directly.

Most treatment plants do not provide for disinfection of treated effluent to reduce faecal coliforms to a very low
level consistent with the bacteriological standard in AS/NZS 1547:2012. This standard is for effluents used in
spray irrigation, and requires that the average E.coli count should be < 10cfu/100ml with no more than 20% of
samples exceeding 20cfu/100ml. Given that spray irrigation is not utilised in NZ in on-site wastewater
management (drip irrigation being standard practice) disinfection systems are not used except in special cases
where risk reduction measures are required for difficult site locations. However, FC performance rating is of
interest to regional councils in comparing risk reduction potential of individual treatment units in maintaining a
low FC discharge quality.

5 TESTING RESULTS – TRIALS 3 TO 8

5.1 SYSTEMS TESTED

Table 2 sets out the OSET units tested 2007 to 2013. The test results for Trial 3 (2007/2008) were audited under
OSET NTP procedures as a precursor to full OSET NTP management from 2008. Of the twenty one systems
tested over six trials three are not available commercially and one system has been superseded by a new unit.
The performance certificates for all 21 units are downloadable from the OSET NTP pages on the Water NZ web
site. For a copy of the full testing report on an individual system, the company cited on the certificate will need
to be contacted.

The testing results analyses set out in 5.2 to 5.6 below are based on the publically available information in the
performance certificates posted on the OSET NTP pages of the Water NZ web site. The fact that only 20 units
are cited in the results presented in 5.2 to 5.6 relates to the fact that the test results for one unit (AdvanTex) come
from two separate trials with Trial 5 results for BOD5, TSS, TN, NH4-N and energy use superseding those of
Trial 3.

5.2 AS/NZS 1547 ASSESSMENT

Table 3 sets out details of the BOD5 and TSS treatment performance of all OSET units in achieving the AS/NZS
1547 requirements based on the proportion of test results better than the 90% limits detailed in 4.1 above. Two
units did not achieve the BOD5/TSS requirements, one a development model (Biocycle) and one a non-
commercial model (Devan). One unit (Hynds) did not submit for AS/NZS 1547 assessment. The remaining
seventeen units all achieved AS/NZS 1547 requirements, although 9 of these (53%) had one or more parameters
 less than a 100% performance level but greater than the 90% limit with 8 (47%) reaching a 100% performance
level for both parameters.

Table 2: OSET Units Tested Trials 3 to 8 (2007 to 2013)

Company OSET Unit Treatment Abbreviation
Process
Trial 3 (2007/2008)
 Biocycle Holdings,  Biocycle 6300 [development model not  SAF  Biocycle
 Napier available commercially]
Innoflow Technologies Ltd,  AdvanTex AX-20 Mode 3  rPBR-T  AdvanTex
Auckland
 Oasis Clearwater Systems,  Oasis Clearwater S 2000  SAF  Oasis
 Christchurch
Waipapa Tanks,  Waipapa Tanks Maxi-Treat MV-C 3000  SAF  Maxi-Treat
Kerikeri  (superseded by Econo-Treat)
Trial 4 (2008/2009)
 Humes Pipeline Systems,  Humes FR1 [model not currently available  SAF  Humes
Auckland commercially]
 Hynds Environmental,  Hynds Advanced Lifestyle  SAF  Hynds
Auckland
 WaterGurus (NZ) Ltd,  WaterGurus NovaClear  MBR  NovaClear
Christchurch
Waipapa Tanks,  SAF  Econo-Treat
 Waipapa Tanks Econo-Treat VBB C-2200 2
Kerikeri
 Trial 5 (2009/2010)  
Devan Group, Devan Green [model not available SAF Devan
Tauranga commercially]
RX Plastics Ltd,  Airtech 7000  SAF  Airtech
Ashburton
Innoflow Technologies Ltd,  AdvanTex AX-20 Mode 3  rPBR-T  AdvanTex
Auckland
 Trial 6 (2010/2011)  
Bay of Plenty Regional BOPRC AWTS NI [Council evaluation of AWTS-NI AWTS-NI
Council, Whakatane bark-bed denitrification system]
Quantum Waste Water Quantum Eco System SAF Quantum
Systems, Levin
 Trial 7 (2011/2012)
Allflow Equipment Ltd, Allflow Klaro 9000 10PE SBR Klaro
Nelson
 Trial 8 (2012/2013)
Aqua Nova NZ Ltd Aqua-nova SAF Aqua-nova
Auckland
Aqua Nova NZ Ltd Auckland Aqua-nova NR SAF-NR Aqua-nova NR
TechTreat Ltd TechTreat SS10 SAF TechTreat
Kerikert
Ecological Technologies BIOROCK-S Passive Media BIOROCK
Auckland
Findlater Construction Ltd Findlater PA 5x5 SAF Findlater
nelson
Super-Treat Systems NZ Ltd, Super-Treat NZ12 SAF Super-Treat
Kerikeri
EcoSewerage, Coromandel Eco Sewerage Worm-Wetland EcoSewerage
Treatment Process Key:
SAF Submerged aerated filter
SAF-NR Submerged aerated filter & AWTS-NI Submerged aerated filter &
nitrogen reduction bark bed denitrification
MBR Membrane aerated bioreactor Passive media Gravity dosed patented
SBR Sequencing batch reactor media layers
rPBR-T Textile recirculating packed bed Worm-Wetland Worm based primary
reactor treatment & wetland cells
secondary treatment
 Table 3: Achieving AS/NZS 1547 Requirements
OSET Unit BOD5 TSS Achieved OSET Unit BOD5 TSS Achieved
Standard Standard
 Biocycle 86% 55% NO AWTS-NI 100% 100% YES
 Oasis 100% 100% YES Quantum 95% 100% YES
 Maxi-Treat 100% 95% YES  Klaro 100% 97% YES
 Humes 100% 97% YES Aqua-nova 100% 100% YES
 Hynds --- --- --- Aqua-nova NR 97% 100% YES
 NovaClear 100% 100% YES TechTreat 100% 91% YES
 Econo-Treat 100% 94% YES BIOROCK 100% 100% YES
Devan 100% 76% NO Findlater 100% 100% YES
 Airtech 97% 94% YES Super-Treat 100% 97% YES
 AdvanTex 100% 100% YES EcoSewerage 100% 100% YES

5.3 BENCHMARKING

Benchmark testing is based on 16 test results over three months from Weeks 23 to 35 (Figure 4) which follow
five months of treatment operation. At this point it is anticipated that all treatment processes will have reached
optimum performance, particularly nitrification and denitrification leading to nitrogen reduction. Hence, the
benchmarking ratings represent optimum performance of a unit under controlled test conditions. The benchmark
ratings do not in any way indicate actual field performance, but provide a base against which field performance
(assessed under Strand 2 testing) can be compared. Table 4 sets out the benchmark ratings for all systems tested.

Table 4: Benchmark Ratings

Unit BOD5 TSS TN NH4-N TP FC Energy
 Biocycle B C C C C D C
 Oasis A+ A+ A A+ B C B
 Maxi-Treat A+ A A A+ B C D
 Humes A+ A A A B D D
 Hynds A+ A A A+ B C B
 NovaClear A+ A+ C A B A+ C
 Econo-Treat A+ A+ A A B C B
Devan A B D A B C B
 Airtech A B B A B C C
 AdvanTex A+ A+ A A+ B C A
AWTS-NI A+ A+ A A+ B C C
Quantum A A+ C C B C B
 Klaro A+ A D A+ B B A
Aqua-nova A+ B D A B D C
Aqua-nova NR A B D B B C C
TechTreat A B B C B C C
BIOROCK A+ A D C B C A
Findlater A+ A+ D A+ B B C
Super-Treat A+ C B B B C D
EcoSewerage A A+ B C B C A

Chart 1 takes the above rating indicators from the seven test parameters and assigns a score of 5 for A+, 4 for A,
3 for B, 2 for C and 1 for D. It then places the twenty systems by aggregated scoring value in order from highest
(overall best performance) to lowest scoring value.
Chart 1:
OSET NTP Aggregated Benchmark Rating Overall Comparison
30
Highest value equates to best performance

25

20

15

10

5.4 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE STABILITY

The median of the sixteen benchmarking results is used for assigning the rating values A+ to D. However it is
the standard deviation which indicates the variability of results. Table 5 shows the variation in standard
deviations for each of the five chemical parameters (excluding FC and energy).

Table 5:
Unit Benchmark Standard Deviation by Parameter
BOD5 TSS TN NH4-N TP
 Biocycle 4.1 22.0 2.5 7.2 0.8
 Oasis 0.9 2.0 2.9 0.1 0.7
 Maxi-Treat 1.6 6.0 1.0 0.8 0.6
 Humes 1.9 7.3 1.3 0.9 0.4
 Hynds 2.3 3.76 2.6 1.4 0.3
 NovaClear 0.0 0.9 3.6 1.0 0.3
 Econo-Treat 1.5 3.49 1.3 1.8 0.5
Devan 4.7 21.0 2.5 1.14 0.55
 Airtech 3.3 5.7 2.7 5.3 0.73
 AdvanTex 0.7 4.1 1.3 0.21 0.7
AWTS-NI 1.71 1.71 2.81 1.87 0.24
Quantum 1.44 1.55 3.34 3.88 0.32
 Klaro 0.69 2.16 5.16 0.04 0.28
Aqua-nova 1.9 4.8 3.3 0.7 0.4
Aqua-nova NR 4.6 8.3 8.5 1.9 0.4
TechTreat 3.5 11.0 5.8 5.9 0.6
BIOROCK 2.3 1.5 2.7 3.8 0.6
Findlater 1.8 1.0 4.6 1.0 0.4
Super-Treat 1.7 4.6 2.5 4.5 0.3
EcoSewerage 1.1 1.0 0.7 1.1 0.3
The higher the standard deviation the less stable the treatment performance related to an individual parameter. If
the standard deviation values in Table 5 above are summed for each of the parameters shown, then a comparison
between the summed values can be made. This comparison is set out in Chart 2.

Chart 2:
OSET NTP Summed Benchmark Standard Deviation Overall
Comparison
40

35
Lowest value equates to best performance
30

25

20

15

10

However, the overall treatment stability as assessed by variability of test results over time is best appreciated by
examination of the individual OSET testing results review reports.

5.5 AERATION PERFORMANCE

The effectiveness of aerobic treatment (as supported by the aeration system) is best assessed via the ammonia
oxidation (nitrification) performance of a treatment unit. This is indicated by the treated effluent ammonia
concentration, with low NH4-N values indicating high aeration performance. Chart 3 compares the benchmark
effluent NH4-N values for each treatment unit.

The six best aeration performance systems in terms of ammonia reduction involve four submerged aeration filter
units (Oasis; Hynds; Maxi-Treat; Findlater), a sequencing batch reactor (Klaro) and a textile recirculating packed
bed reactor (AdvanTex).

5.6 NITROGEN REDUCTION PERFORMANCE

The nitrogen reduction performance is important for some councils in implementing nutrient management
practices for rural residential development. For example only those treatment units with a total nitrogen rating of
A or A+ meet the BOPRC 15g/m3 TN limit for installation of OSET units in the Rotorua Lakes areas.

Currently only four commercially available systems achieve this treatment level (as shown in Chart 4 for
Advantex, Oasis, Econo-Treat and Hynds).
Chart 3
OSET NTP Aeration System Performance in Terms of NH4-N
in Treated Effluent
20

18
Lowest value equates to best performance
16

14

12

10

8 NH4-N g/m3

Chart 4
OSET NTP Nitrogen Reduction Performance in Terms of Tot-N
in Treated Effluent
45

40
Lowest value equates to best performance
35

30
The four commercially available systems meeting
the 15 g/m3 Benchmark level are shown in green
25

Total Nitrogen Benchmark

20
Level Tot-N g/m3

15

10

0
5.7 ENERGY USE

In selecting an OSET system for their property a key element in homeowner evaluation of alternative treatment
systems will be capital cost, along with running cost. The OSET NTP testing results assist in evaluating running
costs via the average daily energy benchmark value. It is important to recognise that the kWh/day benchmark
values do not indicate likely field performance. The overall energy rating of a treatment unit reflects conditions
at the test facility – power consumption for effluent pumping under field conditions will be specific to the
irrigation distribution system as installed.

Chart 5 compares the benchmark kWh/day average daily energy use for each system. The five lowest energy use
units include two with passive ventilation systems (BIOROCK and EcoSewerage) a textile recirculating packed
bed reactor (AdvanTex), a sequencing batch reactor (Klaro) and a submerged aerated filter (Quantum).

Overall energy consumption needs to be compared to aeration performance since over-aeration will result in high
consumption without necessarily achieving best available effluent quality.

Chart 5:
OSET NTP Benchmark Energy Use Overall Comparison kWh/day
10

9
Lowest value equates to best performance
8

4 kWh/day

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The OSET NTP has evaluated twenty one treatment units over seven years. Four of the tested systems are not
available commercially due in part to testing results that indicate the units would benefit from technical
improvements.

Of seventeen units which achieved AS/NZS 1547 performance levels for BOD5 and TSS, eight (47%) achieved
100% for both parameters with nine (53%) between 90% and 100% for one or more of the two parameters.

The benchmark performance ratings show that of the commercially available units six achieve four or more A+
and A parameter performance ratings (Advantex; Oasis; Hynds; NovaClear; Econo-Treat; Klaro).

Five of the above six treatment units indicate high treatment unit process stability as assessed by the sum of
standard deviation values for the five chemical parameters (Advantex; Oasis; NovaClear; Econo-Treat; Klaro)
with the two natural process units (bark filter AWTS-NI; worm-wetland EcoSewerage) proving highly stable as
well.

The five commercially available systems showing high aeration performance as assessed by ammonia reduction
levels are Oasis, Hynds and Findlater (SAF units), Klaro (SBR) and AdvanTex (rPBR-T). Four commercially
available systems are within a benchmark level of 15 g/m3 total nitrogen, these being AdvanTex (rPBR-T),
Oasis, Econo-Treat and Hynds (SAF units).

Selecting an OSET unit for a particular application will depend on many factors of which some will include the
performance ratings from OSET NTP testing. It has become clear that the testing and auditing process has
proved invaluable to manufacturers in indicating robustness of system performance as well as indicating when
technical improvements may be beneficial. Several companies have subsequently submitted modified treatment
units for retesting.

The key constraint to improving and developing the operation and outreach of the OSET NTP is the low number
of Funding Partners contributing annual grants. The current Funding Partners group comprise five Regional
Councils, two Unitary Councils and seven District Councils. This is in spite of detailed representations to all
Councils on three occasions in recent years seeking support funding. OSET NTP believes that widespread
council support is essential to maintain the already high standards of OSET NTP operations, and thereby
contribute to significant environmental and public health benefits from well-functioning and performing on-site
domestic wastewater treatment units throughout all areas of New Zealand

Figure 1: OSET NTP Organisational Structure

Water NZ MoU-PAG
[Financial and  Water NZ
Secretarial  BOPRC
Services]  RDC
 SWANS-SIG

SWANS-MAG

SWANS-SIG Technical Manager

Reporting Operations
Manager Manager
[BOPRC] [RDC]
Figure 2: OSET NTP Testing and Auditing Process

OSET NTP TESTING AND

AUDITING STRUCTURE

Strand STRAND 1 STRAND 2 STRAND 3

Name OSET OSET field OSET product

benchmark performance and component
appraisal (ex- and appraisal (ex-
factory units) maintenance factory units)
appraisal

Operation and SWANS-MAG SWANS-MAG SWANS-MAG

Management Technical Technical Technical
Manager [and Manager [and Manager and
RDC, BOPRC] contractors] Telarc SAI

Audit SWANS-MAG SWANS-MAG Telarc SAI and

SWANS-MAG

Funding Manufacturers Manufacturers Manufacturers

plus Regional plus Regional
and District and District
Council grants Council grants

Standards AS/NZS 1547 AS/NZS 1547 AS/NZS 1546.1

Alignment AS/NZS 1546.3 AS/NZS 1546.3

Figure 3: The OSET Testing Facility

Figure 4: Testing Timeline Trial 8 – 2012/2013