lastID = -295172
Skip to main content Skip to top navigation Skip to site search
Top of page
  • My citations options
    Web Back (from Web)
    Chicago Back (from Chicago)
    MLA Back (from MLA)
Close action menu

You need to login to use this feature.

Please wait a moment…
Please wait while we update your results...
Please wait a moment...
Description: Access Water
Context Menu
Description: Book cover
ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?
  • Browse
  • Compilations
    • Compilations list
  • Subscriptions
Tools

Related contents

Loading related content

Workflow

No linked records yet

X
  • Current: 2022-05-04 18:25:06 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-05-04 18:25:05 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-01-31 20:55:53 Administrator
  • 2020-01-31 20:55:52 Administrator
Description: Access Water
  • Browse
  • Compilations
  • Subscriptions
Log in
0
Accessibility Options

Base text size -

This is a sample piece of body text
Larger
Smaller
  • Shopping basket (0)
  • Accessibility options
  • Return to previous
Description: Book cover
ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?

ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?

ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?

  • New
  • View
  • Details
  • Reader
  • Default
  • Share
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • New
  • View
  • Default view
  • Reader view
  • Data view
  • Details

This page cannot be printed from here

Please use the dedicated print option from the 'view' drop down menu located in the blue ribbon in the top, right section of the publication.

screenshot of print menu option

Description: Book cover
ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?
Abstract
The Rock Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (AWTF) near Portland, Oregon has traditionally relied on a chemical approach for phosphorus removal and dosed alum at multiple locations to meet a 0.1 mg/L total-phosphorus limit. However, a biological phosphorus removal (BPR) process could drastically reduce chemical costs and can also reduce sludge handling and hauling costs. Additionally, for the Rock Creek AWTF BPR could reduce the need for additional tertiary clarification facilities and thus save on future capital costs. Based on these potential benefits, the Rock Creek Facility Plan evaluated the feasibility of BPR and found that with an innovative “multipurpose” basin concept, the Rock Creek AWTF could operate with both a chemical and biological approach, providing the greatest amount of reliability and flexibility.
The Rock Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (AWTF) near Portland, Oregon has traditionally relied on a chemical approach for phosphorus removal and dosed alum at multiple locations to meet a 0.1 mg/L total-phosphorus limit. However, a biological phosphorus removal (BPR) process could drastically reduce chemical costs and can also reduce sludge handling and hauling costs. Additionally,...
Author(s)
Anne ConklinJeff McCormickCarlo SpaniPerry SunderlandRick ShanleyB. Narayanan
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
SubjectSession 25: Phosphorus Removal
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jan, 2008
ISSN1938-6478
SICI1938-6478(20080101)2008:15L.1752;1-
DOI10.2175/193864708788733927
Volume / Issue2008 / 15
Content sourceWEFTEC
First / last page(s)1752 - 1764
Copyright2008
Word count129

Purchase price $11.50

Get access
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: Book cover
ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?
Pricing
Non-member price: $11.50
Member price:
-295172
Get access
-295172
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.

Details

Description: Book cover
ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?
Abstract
The Rock Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (AWTF) near Portland, Oregon has traditionally relied on a chemical approach for phosphorus removal and dosed alum at multiple locations to meet a 0.1 mg/L total-phosphorus limit. However, a biological phosphorus removal (BPR) process could drastically reduce chemical costs and can also reduce sludge handling and hauling costs. Additionally, for the Rock Creek AWTF BPR could reduce the need for additional tertiary clarification facilities and thus save on future capital costs. Based on these potential benefits, the Rock Creek Facility Plan evaluated the feasibility of BPR and found that with an innovative “multipurpose” basin concept, the Rock Creek AWTF could operate with both a chemical and biological approach, providing the greatest amount of reliability and flexibility.
The Rock Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (AWTF) near Portland, Oregon has traditionally relied on a chemical approach for phosphorus removal and dosed alum at multiple locations to meet a 0.1 mg/L total-phosphorus limit. However, a biological phosphorus removal (BPR) process could drastically reduce chemical costs and can also reduce sludge handling and hauling costs. Additionally,...
Author(s)
Anne ConklinJeff McCormickCarlo SpaniPerry SunderlandRick ShanleyB. Narayanan
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
SubjectSession 25: Phosphorus Removal
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jan, 2008
ISSN1938-6478
SICI1938-6478(20080101)2008:15L.1752;1-
DOI10.2175/193864708788733927
Volume / Issue2008 / 15
Content sourceWEFTEC
First / last page(s)1752 - 1764
Copyright2008
Word count129

Actions, changes & tasks

Outstanding Actions

Add action for paragraph

Current Changes

Add signficant change

Current Tasks

Add risk task

Connect with us

Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Connect to us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on YouTube
Powered by Librios Ltd
Powered by Librios Ltd
Authors
Terms of Use
Policies
Help
Accessibility
Contact us
Copyright © 2024 by the Water Environment Federation
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: WWTF Digital Boot 180x150
WWTF Digital (180x150)
Created on Jul 02
Websitehttps:/­/­www.wef.org/­wwtf?utm_medium=WWTF&utm_source=AccessWater&utm_campaign=WWTF
180x150
Anne Conklin# Jeff McCormick# Carlo Spani# Perry Sunderland# Rick Shanley# B. Narayanan. ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Web. 6 Jun. 2025. <https://www.accesswater.org?id=-295172CITANCHOR>.
Anne Conklin# Jeff McCormick# Carlo Spani# Perry Sunderland# Rick Shanley# B. Narayanan. ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Accessed June 6, 2025. https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-295172CITANCHOR.
Anne Conklin# Jeff McCormick# Carlo Spani# Perry Sunderland# Rick Shanley# B. Narayanan
ChemP or BioP? Why Not Both?
Access Water
Water Environment Federation
December 22, 2018
June 6, 2025
https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-295172CITANCHOR