Mansell, Scott

Scott is a Principal Engineer in the Research and Innovation Program at Clean Water Services in Hillsboro, Oregon. Scott's career in research and engineering has covered an exceptionally wide range of subject areas within the One Water field including wastewater, stormwater, reuse, soils, surface waters, and the watershed. He currently leads research efforts at Clean Water Services for the areas of advanced sensing, PFAS and emerging contaminants, advanced hydraulic and water quality modeling, and data analysis/machine learning and is an active participant in projects in many other areas including stormwater management, climate change, and integrated planning. He has collaborated on many research projects and studies with universities, consultants, and other utilities around the country. After earning a PhD in Environmental Engineering from UC Berkeley in 2012, Scott worked in consulting for 5 more years before coming to Clean Water Services in 2017. He is a registered PE in Oregon.

Titles from this speaker

Closing the PFAS Mass Balance to WRRFs and the Watershed

Abstract

Background PFAS are a contaminant of major concern for Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRFs) due to increasing concern from the public and regulators about the impacts of these compounds in discharges from the WRRF. However, WRRFs are not designed to destroy or remove PFAS. Though technologies are emerging for addressing PFAS in biosolids and effluent, these are extremely costly and infeasible for most WRRFs. Source control remains the most feasible and cost-effective strategy for controlling PFAS at WRRFs. However, the source control mechanisms differ greatly depending on if the source is industrial, commercial, or domestic. Therefore, understanding the loadings from the site-specific dominant sources to a WRRF is important to drive cost-effective pretreatment programs for PFAS. Effluent discharges from WRRFs and industrial point sources are known sources of PFAS to surface waters. However, there are frequently many other non-point sources of PFAS to rivers which are less understood, such as urban and agricultural runoff and baseflows. The importance of the different sources may vary seasonally in response to precipitation and irrigation. Understanding both the point and non-point sources of PFAS to rivers and creeks and how each of these is affected by seasonal factors is important to inform integrated planning efforts to address PFAS in a watershed. Objectives Clean Water Services' (CWS) objective was to understand the dominant sources of PFAS to each of its WRRFs and the dominant source(s) of PFAS to the rivers and creeks in the Tualatin River Watershed to help guide its pretreatment, stormwater, and treatment programs in addressing PFAS. This was done by gathering PFAS concentration and flow data from the industries, commercial sectors, and domestic sectors for each WRRF and from each major creek and river in the watershed under various conditions. PFAS concentration and flow data were combined to calculate PFAS loading from the various sources and mass balances for each WRRF and the river. Methods and Status Since 2019, CWS has been conducting regular PFAS monitoring at the WRRFs, the collection system, and industries to identify and address sources of PFAS. CWS identified several key industries with high concentrations and worked with them to create PFAS Management Plans to decrease their PFAS discharges. Since then, CWS has collected hundreds of samples and greatly expanded the locations and types of matrices sampled to help close data gaps identified in previous studies. Several rounds of samples were collected from nine manholes with uniform, single land-use sewersheds (e.g. single family residential, commercial, etc) to predict loadings from these sectors. Several rounds of PFAS samples were also collected from 14 rivers and creeks around the Tualatin River Watershed during both the wet and dry seasons to capture a range of subbasin types (undeveloped, agricultural, urban) and locations upstream and downstream of effluent discharges and urban creek confluences. As of the writing of this abstract in January 2025, the mass balances for each of these have been created and have already been used in making data-driven decisions for source control. Additional samples are being collected to further refine these mass balances under more conditions and to further track down urban sources of PFAS to urban creeks prior to the submittal of the WEFTEC Proceedings paper in July 2024. Findings and Significance PFAS mass balances for each of the WRRFs are shown in Figure 1. Source control efforts since 2019 have been very effective in addressing the largest sources of PFAS to the Rock Creek and Durham WRRFs. While there is still a sizable contribution from industries in the Rock Creek sewershed, the other three WRRFs are now currently dominated by domestic and commercial contributions. Therefore, the source control strategy for these WRRFs will need to incorporate more outreach and education to have a meaningful effect on PFAS concentrations, and not just regulation of industries in the pretreatment program. Urban creeks with no effluent contributions were found to have PFAS concentrations similar to effluent even in the dry season when the creeks are made up mostly of baseflow. This represents a potentially major overlooked non-point source of PFAS to rivers and creeks. PFAS concentrations in the Tualatin River were found to be highly correlated to upstream urbanization and somewhat correlated to upstream agricultural areas. A PFAS mass balance for the lower Tualatin River is shown in Figure 2 for June 2023. This figure illustrates that effluent from the Rock Creek WRRF is the dominant source of PFAS mass to the Tualatin River in the dry season when the effluent makes up roughly 1/3 of the flow in the Tualatin River and the urban creeks had very low flows. However, this likely does not hold true for the wet season when the urban creek flows increase, and it also not likely to be true for rivers that are not effluent-dominated. Although PFAS were detected at much higher concentrations in the Tualatin River downstream of effluent discharges and urban areas, PFAS concentrations of all samples collected in the Tualatin River were below EPA's MCLs for all compounds. All samples for urban creeks, however, exceeded those MCLs. Therefore, additional focus on PFAS in urban stormwater is needed, and efforts are underway to track the source(s) in urban areas.

Mass balances showed that sectors contributing the most PFAS to WRRF varied depending on the sewershed and that urban creeks with no effluent discharges or other known sources of PFAS had concentrations similar to WRRF effluent. WRRF effluent was the dominant source of PFAS to the Tualatin River in the dry season, but urban creeks became the dominant source in the wet season. These results highlight the importance of mass balances for identifying sources and focusing source control efforts.

SpeakerMansell, Scott

Presentation time

14:00:00

14:30:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionReal Life PFAS Issues: WRRF to Watershed to Biosolids

Session number204

Session locationRoom 253

TopicBiosolids and Residuals, Energy Production, Conservation, and Management, Facility Operations and Maintenance, Intermediate Level, Microconstituents and Contaminants of Emerging Concern (Non-PFAS), PFAS

Author(s)

Mansell, Scott, Sherman-Bertinetti, Summer, Baumgartner, Bob, Rodriguez, Maria, McGarry, Amanda, Mansell, Scott

Author(s)S. Mansell1, S.L. Sherman-Bertinetti1, B. Baumgartner1, M.C. Rodriguez1, A. McGarry1

Author affiliation(s)1Clean Water Services, OR

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2024

DOI10.2175/193864718825159505

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count11

Effects of Removing Tertiary Alum Treatment on Tualatin River Water Quality

Abstract

The Tualatin River has had a phosphorus TMDL since 1988 that requires Clean Water Services (CWS) to add tertiary alum at its two advanced water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) in the summer to meet stringent effluent limits for total phosphorus. Over several decades, management of the river has changed dramatically, especially flow management. U.S. EPA recently finalized new aluminum criteria in Oregon that challenges the use of alum in the tertiary process at current application rates to control phosphorus. CWS conducted a study in which tertiary alum addition at the WRRFs was ceased and the resulting effects on the river were monitored and modeled. While the total phosphorus concentrations in the effluent were higher than they are with alum use, the study demonstrated that the increase in total phosphorus concentration did not negatively impact water quality in the river.

Clean Water Services (CWS) demonstrated through experiments and modeling that river conditions have changed since the conditions in the 1988 TMDL that produced stringent effluent phosphorus limits for WRRFs, and river water quality can be maintained with higher effluent phosphorus concentrations. For three summers, CWS monitored the aluminum, pH, and chlorophyll-a response in the river which showed the ability to maintain water quality standards in the Tualatin River.

SpeakerCrown, Julia

Presentation time

13:30:00

13:50:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionNutrient Management: Growing Water Quality

Session locationRoom S504a - Level 5

TopicIntermediate Level, Nutrients, Watershed Management, Water Quality, and Groundwater

Author(s)

J. Crown

Author(s)J. J. Crown 1; S. Mansell 1 ; R. Baumgartner 1; P. Schauer 1; J. Crown 1;

Author affiliation(s)Clean Water Services 1; Clean Water Services 1 ; Clean Water Services 1; Clean Water Services 1; Clean Water Services 1;

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2023

DOI10.2175/193864718825158996

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count12

Generation of a Heatmap to Evaluate MS4 Sampling Locations

Abstract

Clean Water Services (CWS) is a water resources management district responsible for wastewater treatment and stormwater management serving over 600,000 residents and several major industries in Washington County, Oregon. CWS holds the nation's first watershed-based permit that includes four water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) discharging to the Tualatin River and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). Stormwater runoff is a contributor to pollution on creeks and rivers. CWS' stormwater management program includes the standards for design and construction of best management practices, maintenance and expansion of the stormwater conveyance system, and the regulatory monitoring of the stormwater runoff quality of the MS4 discharges to the nearby creeks and river. These activities are implemented in collaboration with twelve co-implementor cities and Washington County. To comply with the permit-required monitoring requirements, CWS has sampled five MS4 outfalls representing five different land use combinations (Table 1) for at least three storm events per year over twelve years. These outfalls aimed to be a sample that represents the different landuse types for the service area. The samples are analyzed for twenty different water quality constituents (Table 2) to characterize the runoff from the land use contributing to each stormwater outfall and their potential impact to the urban creeks and the Tualatin River. However, the drainage area to the monitoring sites represents just 0.4% of CWS' total MS4 service area. In addition, a recent analysis of the current MS4 sampling sites showed inconsistent patterns and trends, as well as a lack of representation for the dynamic state of the region. For example, Figure 1 shows the time series of E. coli data collected from the five monitoring sites. The two sites with industrial land use drainage basins have very different E. coli concentrations suggesting the sites do not represent the industrial land use well or that the industrial land use is not well understood. The limited number of sampling site's locations may not capture the variability and complexity of the service area. Classifying and monitoring drainage basins by land use alone may not be a sufficient way to capture the drivers of stormwater runoff pollutants. Similarly, Figure 2 shows a time series of zinc data collected at each site. Inconsistent outliers occur at one of the residential sites demonstrating that there is a driver for zinc spikes not being well-represented by using 'residential' drainage basins alone. Finally, there is poor paired sample between the MS4 water quality data and the routine ambient sampling locations downstream of these locations. This is potentially because none of the sampling sites are located directly upstream of the ambient sampling sites. Therefore, it makes it difficult to understand the contributions of different land uses to runoff water quality and their effects on receiving waterbodies, as well as suggesting that the selected MS4 sites do not represent the service area well. As part of the effort to create and maintain resilient watersheds, CWS is working to develop a stormwater monitoring plan that strategically optimizes sampling locations and sampling frequency to better represent the service area, better identify the drivers and sources of pollutants, and makes better use of ratepayer funds to understand how to address pollutants. CWS' most recent work includes the generation of a GIS 'heatmap' to identify the areas that are prone to show higher pollutant loading. In addition, CWS would like to identify locations that provide a better correlation with the ambient sampling locations. Several versions of the heatmap have been completed to identify the areas by their physical characteristics. Currently, the approach combines spatial data including land use, traffic counts, age of development, drainage area size, impervious surfaces, current ambient sampling locations, future development areas, and demographic information. The final product, which is estimated to be ready in May, seeks to inform the development of a flexible and adaptive stormwater monitoring program and provide more relevant information to support both CWS' and the co-implementers' decisions regarding stormwater runoff water quality and its impact to nearby waterbodies. In this work, we will present the framework that led to the generation of the heatmap, the advantages of its use, and the steps followed to create the tool.

Assessment of surface runoff water quality is part of Clean Water Services' (CWS) stormwater management program. Samples have been collected regularly from different land use types for decades, but recent data analysis failed to provide consistent information regarding a particular land use using these sites. This work presents the data analysis and a proposed strategy to select sampling locations that best represent the spatial characteristics of the service area.

SpeakerPiemonti, Debora

Presentation time

14:30:00

14:50:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionMaintaining Water Quality During Wet Weather Events

Session number416

Session locationRoom 338

TopicCSO & SSO Planning and Mitigation, Intermediate Level, Stormwater and Green Infrastructure, Watershed Management, Water Quality, and Groundwater

Author(s)

Piemonti, Debora, Crown, Julia, Faulkner, Chris, Baumgartner, Bob, Mansell, Scott, Hughes, Jamie

Author(s)D. Piemonti1, J. Crown1, C. Faulkner2, B. Baumgartner1, S. Mansell1, J. Hughes1

Author affiliation(s)1Clean Water Services, OR, 2Atlanta Regional Commission, GA

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2024

DOI10.2175/193864718825159662

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count10

Modeling of Eutrophication in the Tualatin River to Facilitate a TMDL Update

Abstract

A phosphorus TMDL has been in place for The Tualatin River in Oregon since 1988 that established strict effluent limits for phosphorus. To achieve the limit requires the use of alum to remove phosphorus from wastewater effluent. Since 1988, the river has changed dramatically in terms of operations, flows, and water quality. The EPA has recently proposed a new aluminum standard in Oregon that may necessitate curtailing the use of tertiary alum. A combined effort of modeling eutrophication in the river, data collection, and an experimental elimination of alum addition at the treatment plants was conducted in the summer of 2019. Results suggested that algal growth in the river is no longer phosphorus-limited, but is more sensitive to algal ‘seeding’ from upstream sources, including a treatment wetland. The treatment plants may be able to cease alum addition without harmfully affecting water quality in the river.

SpeakerMansell, Scott

Presentation time

09:30:00

09:50:00

Session time

08:30:00

10:10:00

SessionResiliency Runway: New Trends in Modeling

Session number526

TopicResilience, Disaster Planning and Recovery, Utility Management and Leadership, Watershed Management, Water Quality, and Groundwater

Author(s)

L. BarkerS. MansellS. MansellR. KapurB. BaumgartnerK.J. WilliamsonC. Cheney

Author(s)L. Barker1; S. Mansell1; S. Mansell1; R. Kapur1; B. Baumgartner2; K.J. Williamson1; C. Cheney1;

Author affiliation(s)Clean Water Services, OR1; Clean Water Services, OR, OR2

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2020

DOI10.2175/193864718825157495

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count13

Spatial and Temporal Measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in a Sewershed

Abstract

The SARS-CoV-2 virus can be shed in the feces of persons infected with COVID-19. As a result, sewer surveillance can be used to identify the presence of COVID-19 infections in a particular sewershed. Measurement of SARS-CoV-2 in influents to wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) has been accomplished at hundreds of locations nationally and internationally. Such measurements provide information on the presence of COVID-19 infections, trends including rising and declining case numbers, and quantitative measures to allow comparisons of infection rates between communities. Less commonly, sewer surveillance has been used to measure SARS-CoV-2 within a sewershed (here termed micro-sewersheds) to attempt to determine presence and trends at the community and institutional scale.

Clean Water Services monitored 4 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and 16 manholes in Washington County, Oregon, over a period of 15 months to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 concentrations corresponded with reported COVID-19 cases. SARS-CoV-2 concentrations at WWTPs appeared to be a leading indicator of reported cases. Neighborhoods with high LatinX and high poverty populations also had higher SARS-CoV-2 concentrations. Additionally, outbreaks at food processing plants corresponded with viral peaks in the associated manhole. Surprisingly, SARS-CoV-2 was rarely detected in hospital effluent despite the presence of known cases, and experiments revealed hospital disinfectants can destroy the RNA signal.

SpeakerMansell, Scott

Presentation time

13:50:00

14:10:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionBuilding a Successful Wastewater-based Epidemiology (WBE) Program

Session number501

TopicFundamental Level, Laboratory Practices, Public Communication and Outreach, Utility Management and Leadership

Author(s)

Scott Mansell

Author(s)S. Mansell1; B.A. Layton1; T. Radniecki2; J. Cook1; A. George1;D. Kaya2;H. Ferguson1;A. Piemonti1; C. Kelly2;K. Williamson1;

Author affiliation(s)Clean Water Services, Hillsboro, OR1School of Chemical, Biological, and Environmental Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR2

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2021

DOI10.2175/193864718825158142

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count10

The Road to Carbon Neutrality for Water Reclamation Utilities

Abstract

Clean Water Services (CWS) is a special service district that manages storm and wastewater within Washington County, Oregon. The district set a goal to reduce its carbon footprint through greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and carbon sequestration provided by CWS’s many wetland, stream, and riparian restoration activities. Thus far the work has been done in two parts: 1) CWS operations GHG emission itemization and quantification, and 2) documentation of soil carbon sequestration potential in afforested wetlands and revegetated projects. The results showed that the highest GHG emissions from operations are due to indirect electricity use by the water resources recovery facilities estimated to represent 59% percent of CWS emissions. Soil carbon percentage in CWS revegetation projects were found to double within 5 years after planting, though this is dependent on soil type and revegetation type.

This paper was presented at WEFTEC 2023 in Chicago, IL.

SpeakerPiemonti, Debora

Presentation time

15:30:00

15:50:00

Session time

15:30:00

17:00:00

SessionDecarbonization Case Studies

Session locationRoom S401d - Level 4

TopicIntermediate Level

Author(s)

Piemonti, A Debora

Author(s)A. Piemonti 1; G. DiGioia 1 ; F. Shackleford 2; J. Goetz III 1; D. Mansell 1; A. Piemonti 1;

Author affiliation(s)Clean Water Services 1; Clean Water Services 1 ; Clean Water Services 2; Clean Water Services 1; Clean Water Services 1; Clean Water Services 1;

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2023

DOI10.2175/193864718825159023

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count10

Description: Tracking Down and Addressing Sources of PFAS in Influent Flows Through Strategic...

Tracking Down and Addressing Sources of PFAS in Influent Flows Through Strategic Collection System Monitoring and Targeted Outreach

Abstract

Background
Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) have been commonly used in many industrial applications, fire-fighting materials, and consumer products since the 1950s. These compounds have been associated with various negative human health effects. While manufacture of the most common types of PFAS, such as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), has been phased out in the United States, in many cases other types have been substituted into products that sometimes have similar or worse toxicity [1]. Many types of PFAS exist in current domestic and industrial use, and many of the legacy PFAS types are still environmentally ubiquitous. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its strategic roadmap in October 2021 for addressing PFAS in the environment. Part of that strategy is expected to involve additional monitoring and source control for wastewater utilities. Many wastewater utilities are concerned that future regulations may threaten some resource recovery efforts such as beneficial reuse and land application of biosolids. Some states, such as Michigan, have already proactively issued limits to biosolids applications based on PFAS concentrations. Some wastewater utilities around the country have begun to sample their influent, effluent, and biosolids for PFAS. In general, this has provided useful data on the PFAS types in wastewater and their concentrations. However, results have been site-specific with both the types and concentrations of PFAS detected highly dependent on the sewershed properties. However, few wastewater utilities have done monitoring for PFAS in the sanitary collection system to determine the sources of different types of PFAS in the sewershed. While the EPA has provided guidance on the industrial types likely to have high PFAS in their discharges, in most cases the actual discharge concentrations are site-specific even from similar industry types. PFAS are also commonly found in domestic and commercial wastewater due to their widespread use in consumer products. Understanding the types and sources of PFAS present in their sewershed can help wastewater utilities better understand the threat posed by PFAS and help provide the tools to proactively mitigate the sources.
Objectives
Clean Water Services' (CWS's) objective was to determine the threat posed by PFAS and develop strategies to mitigate the threat proactively. This was done through strategic monitoring for PFAS at the treatment plants and within the collection system accompanied by targeted sampling and general outreach to industries, and the commercial, and domestic sectors, followed by development of PFAS minimization plans.
Methods
Between 2019 and 2022, samples were collected from the influent, effluent, and biosolids of CWS's treatment plants, from the soils where biosolids were applied, from specific industries, and from many sanitary sewer manholes. The concentration of 36 types of PFAS were quantified in each sample. Samples were collected approximately quarterly, though not all locations were sampled in each sample event as selected manhole locations in each sample event were determined based on the results from the previous samples to 'chase' high concentrations of specific PFAS 'upstream' to the source. Industries were initially selected for sampling based on EPA guidance. Additional industrial samples were focused on those industries that were identified as sources of PFAS in the initial industrial sampling and through the sanitary manhole sampling. CWS reached out to each industry prior to initial sampling to explain the reasons for sampling, and followed up with initial results. Additional samples were collected and additional outreach was conducted to industries identified as sources of high PFAS concentrations through ongoing industry sampling and strategic sanitary manhole sampling. CWS worked with the Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center (PPRC) to create outreach materials for commercial and domestic sources and to develop a PFAS minimization plan for CWS. CWS continued to work collaboratively with industries identified as sources high sources of PFAS as the concentrations decreased. Ordinances and policies were updated to be able to better regulate PFAS through source control. A dashboard was also created to provide easier access to PFAS data in the sewershed to stakeholders. Because CWS expects to continue monitoring PFAS and other contaminants of emerging concern into the future, in 2022 CWS began efforts to create a trace organics laboratory in order to analyze PFAS samples in-house.
Status
As of the writing of this abstract in Dec 2021, CWS is currently contracting with the PPRC for developing the outreach materials and PFAS minimization plan. While PFAS monitoring and outreach efforts have been ongoing since 2019 and are expected to continue well into the future, much has already been learned about the types of PFAS present, their removal in wastewater treatment, and their sources in the sewershed. Monitoring and targeted outreach has already succeeded in mitigating the two largest individual sources of high PFAS in the influent.
Findings
The concentration of PFAS in CWS influent was relatively low compared to nationwide data, although concentrations of individual PFAS were sometimes high, especially PFOA at the Durham treatment facility (Figure 1). Sampling in the sanitary sewer determined that a single industry was responsible for the elevated PFOA concentrations, and outreach to the industry coupled with additional monitoring resulted in the mitigation of the high PFOA concentrations in the influent. The most commonly detected forms of PFAS present were the 4-, 5-, and 6- carbon chain forms. These were nearly ubiquitous in liquid samples, but concentrations tended to be higher in manholes in industrial areas and at treatment plants where industries make up a large fraction of the wastewater flows, such as Rock Creek (Figure 1). CWS collaborated with largest industrial source to remove PFAS from their supply chain, and concentrations in the sanitary sewer downstream have subsequently decreased. Industries identified as having high concentrations of PFAS in their outfalls were mostly open to discussions with source control personnel, though many are concerned about future regulation. As found across the US, treatment processes were not effective at removing PFAS from influent. The shorter carbon chain compounds tended to be found in the effluent at similar concentrations as the influent, and the longer chain compounds tended to be found in the biosolids (Figure 2). However, concentrations in the soils where biosolids were applied were mostly below detection limits.
Significance
This study demonstrates that monitoring and outreach can be effective at reducing PFAS in wastewater. The results of this study provide a useful case study and template for other utilities seeking to understand the threat posed by PFAS and be able to locate and mitigate the sources without additional regulations or an adversarial relationship with industries.

Identifying and mitigating sources of PFAS to treatment plants in a cost-effective way is of paramount importance to meeting coming regulations. We collected 229 samples from industrial outfalls, influents, effluents, biosolids and strategic locations in the collection system, identified and quantified the types of PFAS coming to and leaving the plants, tracked down the major sources, and worked with them to reduce their PFAS discharges through outreach, education, and control plans.

SpeakerMansell, Scott

Presentation time

16:25:00

16:40:00

Session time

15:30:00

17:00:00

TopicIntermediate Level, PFAS, Research and Innovation

Author(s)

Mansell, Scott

Author(s)Scott Mansell1; Marney Jett1; Bob Baumgartner1; Joy E. Ramirez1; Steve L. Thompson1; Ken J. Williamson1

Author affiliation(s)Clean Water Services, Hillsboro, OR1