Sheraton Grand Hotel
Irving, Texas
January 7­8, 1998

Dr. A. Lynn Wood, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Mr. Stephen Shoemaker, E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Company, Inc.

Dr. Wood and Mr. Shoemaker, the two co-chairs for the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) In Situ Flushing Action Team, opened the meeting by welcoming participants (see Attachment A) to the team's second official meeting. The co-chairs briefly summarized the proceedings of the first meeting, which was held in May 1997 at Hill Air Force Base (AFB). During the first meeting, the team:

After recapping the proceedings of the first meeting, the co-chairs identified five goals for the second meeting:


After the co-chairs welcomed the group and described the goals of the meeting, the participants separated into four subgroups and discussed goals and strategies for the remainder of the afternoon (January 7). The following morning (January 8), the entire team reconvened and subgroup leaders summarized the discussions from their breakout meetings.

Economic Assessment and Remedial Agent Recovery/Reuse
Subgroup Leader:
Other Participants:
Jeff Harwell, University of Oklahoma
Steve Byrne, Cytec Industries
Jon Ginn, Hill AFB
Richard Jackson, Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
Donald Lowe, Rice University
Richard Schoenfeld, Lubrizol Corporation
Leland Vane, EPA
Kathleen Yager, EPA Technology Innovation Office (TIO)

Ways To Minimize Costs Associated With In Situ Flushing Technologies

Dr. Harwell offered some preliminary suggestions of ways to minimize costs associated with in situ flushing technologies. These include:

Dr. Harwell estimated that adhering to the above-listed recommendations could reduce the cost associated with in situ flushing by 76 percent.

Future Subgroup Activities: Goals, Strategies, and Schedules

The subgroup identified four goals toward which they plan to work over the next year:

Before the next RTDF meeting, the subgroup plans to initiate all four of the above-listed efforts, update each other on their progress, discuss problems encountered via e-mail, and meet as necessary. By 1999, the subgroup plans to release a draft summary paper for a journal such as "Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation." At this time, the subgroup is planning to address only surfactant flushing technologies because there are currently no proponents of cosolvent flushing in the subgroup, nor have the cosolvent recovery technologies been identified or developed. The subgroup would be willing, however, to expand the scope of the study if representatives for this technology join the subgroup. The summary paper will incorporate the information gathered for the four goals and will identify the best approaches for conducting an economic analysis.

The RTDF team asked the subgroup to consider site characterization costs in their economic analyses. These costs are usually not included in economic analyses, even though most flushing teams have to perform additional site characterization when they arrive at a site. Participants agreed that initial characterization studies are typically "woefully inadequate" to accurately define NAPL plumes or properly design an in situ flush. Accurately defining the location of NAPL is crucial because it ensures that money is not wasted flushing non-polluted areas.

Endpoint Assessment/Technical Performance Criteria
Subgroup Leader:
Backup Subgroup Leader:
Other Participants:
George Losonsky, IT Corporation
Randy Parker, EPA
Ken Moor, Idaho National Engineering & Environmental
Laboratory (INEEL)
Bill Rixey, University of Houston
Stephen Shoemaker, E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Company, Inc.
Richard Steimle, EPA TIO
Richard Willey, EPA

Questions That Need To Be Addressed

After brainstorming and generating a long list of questions that need to be addressed, the subgroup distilled their questions into four categories:

The subgroup also noted that it is important that the public be informed of potential negative outcomes. If the public is hesitant to accept the use of in situ flushing technologies, a comparison of the liabilities associated with other technologies may help alleviate concern.

Future Subgroup Activities: Goals, Strategies, and Schedules

The subgroup identified three objectives:

This subgroup is considering using contractors to write a first draft of each of the above-listed documents. Mr. Steimle noted that contractual support is available.

Technical Practices/Protocol
Subgroup Leader:
Other Participants:
Gary Pope, University of Texas
Thomas Early, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Carol English, Cytec Industries
Stephanie Fiorenza, Rice University
Anthony Holder, Rice University
C. Wayne Ives, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Richard Jahnke, Lubrizol Corporation
Clarence Miller, Rice University
Mike Shook, INEEL
Randall Sillan, University of Florida
A. Lynn Wood, EPA
Kathleen Yager, EPA TIO
S. Laura Yeh, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC)

Future Subgroup Activities: Goals, Strategies, and Schedules

The subgroup plans to create a living up-to-date technical guide on both best practices and technology needs. The Technology Practices Manual (TPM) written by the Advanced Applied Technology Demonstration Facility (AATDF) will be used as a resource and a point of departure for this technical guide. The subgroup plans to place their technical guide on the Internet so that the document can be updated by the group and linked to the TPM and other source documents. The guide will be separated into two volumes. Volume I will address "What we know now" and will be targeted for regulators and contractors. Volume II will address "What we still need to do" and will be targeted to researchers. At this point, the subgroup plans to focus only on surfactant and cosolvent flushing technologies, but will consider including other types of flushing agents if proponents of these technologies join their subgroup.

The subgroup drafted the following preliminary outlines for both volumes of the technical guide:

Volume I. Protocol

1.0 Description of Technology
1.1 Screening

1.1.1 Site Parameters. This section will discuss how to evaluate whether a site is an appropriate candidate for in situ flushing.

1.1.2 Preliminary Cost Estimating/Budgeting. The subgroup plans to coordinate with the "Economic Assessment and Remedial Agent Recovery/Reuse" subgroup for this section of the document.
1.2 Conceptual Approach (e.g., phased site characterization, phased surfactant/cosolvent flushing events)
1.3 Site Characterization
1.4 Design Processes. The subgroup plans to refer to the AATDF TPM for assistance with this section of the document.

1.4.1 Laboratory Testing

1.4.2 Subsurface Modeling

1.4.3 Facilities Design (e.g., well construction and placement)

1.4.4 Treatment Engineering
1.5 Performance Assessment
1.6 Implementation/Regulatory Issues (e.g., injection well permitting/regulatory issues with disposal)

Volume II. Technology Needs

1.0 State of the Art. This section will provide a discussion of completed projects and lessons that have been learned.
1.1 Technology Limitations (e.g., fractured bedrock)
1.2 Site Characterization (e.g., innovative dense nonaqueous phase liquids [DNAPL] detection technologies)
1.3 Design Processes

1.3.1 Heterogeneities

1.3.2 Access Limitations (e.g., buildings)

1.3.3 Surfactant Recovery

1.3.4 Integration with Other Technologies in Treatment Train

1.3.5 Application to Other Compounds (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls)

1.3.6 Numerical Modeling
1.4 Recommendations

The subgroup has identified several short-term goals:

Full-Scale Design
Subgroup Leader:
Other Participants:
Michael Annable, University of Florida
Carl Enfield, EPA
Mark Hasegawa, Surbec Environmental
John Londergan, Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
Donald Lowe, Rice University
Kevin Warner, Levine*Fricke*Recon
Randy Wolf, BDM International Air Force Research Laboratory

A. Lynn Wood, EPA

Future Subgroup Activities: Goals, Strategies, and Schedules

The subgroup identified two goals:


Coordination Between Subgroups

After the subgroups completed their presentations, the entire RTDF team discussed ways to work together to achieve their team mission. It was noted that there are two ways in which the subgroups can work:

The team did not officially decide which approach they would pursue. It was generally agreed that the subgroups need more time to solidify their ideas before deciding on which option will be the most useful. The team will finalize coordination strategies at the next In Situ Flushing Action Team Meeting.

Activities Planned Before the Next In Situ Flushing Action Team Meeting

The team agreed that the next action team meeting should take place in June or July 1998. Before the group reconvenes, the following should occur:

Suggested Format for the Next In Situ Flushing Action Team Meeting

Dr. Wood asked the participants for feedback on the format of the first and second team meetings. In general, the participants liked having a mix of talks and group activities. Some thought that more time should be dedicated to subgroup meetings. One member suggested allowing subgroups to meet in the morning, reconvening the entire team in the early afternoon, and then allowing the subgroups to meet again in the late afternoon.


Savage Well Site, New Hampshire
Mr. Richard Willey, EPA
Mr. Mike Shook, INEEL

The Savage Well site is located in Milford, New Hampshire. Mr. Willey provided information on site background and Mr. Shook gave a presentation on a neutral buoyance demonstration that is planned in the near future.

Site Background

Ground water in Milford, New Hampshire is contaminated with DNAPL compounds. Contaminated ground water has migrated over a mile downgradient, has resulted in the shutdown of the Savage Municipal Well, and has impacted a supply well at a trailer park. Contaminants have also been detected in the vicinity of private and state fish hatcheries on both sides of the Souhegan River.

Site characterization studies indicate that the horizontal and vertical distribution of contaminants has shifted dramatically over the years due to changes in pumping patterns in the area. The most recent characterization studies utilized data from vertical profiling and permanent monitoring wells. Although these data have been very useful, there is still only a generalized description of the contaminant source.

The Record of Decision and subsequent consent decree that have been issued for the Savage Well site divide the area into two sections:

Three potential DNAPL locations have been identified at the OK Tool source area. Site characterization studies indicate that depth to bedrock is variable, and that the till is discontinuous. A slurry wall, coupled with soil vapor extraction and hydraulic control within the walled-off space were selected for source containment and treatment. Subsequent to remedy selection, EPA was approached by INEEL and agreed to use this site for a neutral buoyancy field demonstration. Both EPA and the state believe that removal of DNAPL mass represents the best chance of reducing the time needed for operation and maintenance activities.

Concepts Related to Neutral Buoyancy

The concept of surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation at neutral buoyancy (SEAR-NB) was developed in 1995. By solubilizing the more dense DNAPL constituents in a neutrally buoyant microemulsion, vertical migration of the contaminants can be eliminated. A design process that eliminates vertical migration is especially attractive at sites where no capillary barrier exists to restrict vertical movement (such as the Savage Well Site). Typically, although identically neutral buoyancy can be acheived, it is often considered an impractical overdesign. Instead, negative buoyancy is minimized, and a small degree of vertical migration is allowed. The application of SEAR-NB, then, is to minimize the degree of vertical migration, and to predict the degree of migration expected so that wells can be screened sufficiently deeply to ensure full capture of the contaminant. Three approaches were used in the development of SEAR-NB:

Design Parameters that Alter Effects of Buoyancy/Gravity

Microemulsion (ME) density Decreasing ME density (e.g., by adding a light alcohol to the chemical mix) reduces vertical migration.

Parameters that Alter the Horizontal Driving Force

ME viscosity Increasing the ME viscosity (e.g., by using a foam or polymer) will reduce vertical migration.
Injection rate Increasing the injection rate will reduce vertical migration.
Well spacing Bringing wells closer together will reduce vertical migration.

INEEL's Demonstration At the Savage Well Site

INEEL plans to test the concept of neutral buoyancy with a field demonstration at the OK Tool source area. This site does not have a confining bed to preclude vertical migration. Therefore, a neutral buoyancy flood is considered an attractive option.

Mr. Shook summarized the steps that INEEL is taking to ensure that their demonstration is successfully deployed:

RTDF team members can keep abreast of developments at the Savage Well site by dialing into the Milford, New Hampshire Web site.

Dover AFB, Delaware
Dr. A. Lynn Wood, EPA
Dr. Michael Annable, University of Florida

Dr. Wood and Dr. Annable provided an overview of the in situ flushing demonstrations that are planned at Dover AFB. This project is being conducted by EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) with funding from the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The goal of the project is to compare enhanced in situ extraction technologies for removal of NAPL at two field sites (one light nonaqueous phase liquids [LNAPL] site and one DNAPL site) using side-by-side demonstrations. Hill AFB was chosen as the LNAPL site and the Ground-Water Remediation Field Laboratory (GRFL) at Dover AFB has been chosen as the DNAPL site. Activities at Hill AFB are nearing completion (i.e., all field work activities have been completed, researchers are completing technology performance assessments for the different test cells, and EPA will start comparing the results attained at the different test cells in the near future). Activities at Dover AFB are just getting underway.

Dover AFB is located in a permeable silty sand formation with a clay-rich aquitard at approximately 40 feet below the surface. The natural water table is approximately 20 to 25 feet below the ground surface and the natural hydraulic gradient is relatively flat. The NRMRL has installed two hydraulically isolated test cells and plans to perform about 6 demonstrations at Dover AFB. The first demonstration will be led by the University of Florida (under Dr. Annable's direction) and will be a cosolvent flush. The aim of this first demonstration, therefore, will be to solubilize contaminants rather than to mobilize them. The University of Florida plans to conduct a single phase microemulsion (Windsor Type I system) flush in the future.

Unlike that of Hill AFB, the ground water in the proposed test location at Dover AFB is not contaminated. DNAPL (i.e., PCE) will be released into the test cells and then recovered via in situ flushing technologies. The DNAPL release strategy is currently in place, but EPA is awaiting regulatory approval for their plan. Upon issuance of a regulatory permit, the demonstrations will go forth as follows:

Sage's Dry Cleaners, Florida
Mr. Kevin Warner, Levine*Fricke*Recon

Mr. Warner of Levine*Fricke*Recon (LFR) described a cosolvent flushing demonstration that is planned at Sage's Dry Cleaners in Jacksonville, Florida. The pilot project is being sponsored by the state of Florida and supported by tax money collected from dry cleaning companies. To date, LFR has completed a contamination assessement of the dissolved PCE at the site using data collected from direct push soil borings and from existing monitoring and supply wells. Mr. Warner realizes that a DNAPL source area characterization study (or studies) will need to be performed before the pilot flush is deployed.

LFR plans to use hydraulic controls in the test area (an area 15 feet in diameter and 5 feet deep). The system will involve one injection well and three extraction wells, the latter of which will pump at twice the rate of the injection well. The team (University of Florida, Florida Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP], LFR) plans to use ethanol as a flushing agent. LFR is currently writing the plans for their project and hopes to kick off the demonstration in April 1998.

Mr. Warner also mentioned that LFR is hoping to conduct a surfactant flushing pilot in the near future at an FDEP Dry Cleaner Program Site. This test may be implemented in the fall of 1998.

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Ms. Laura Yeh, NFESC

Ms. Yeh is working on an in situ flushing project funded by the Department of Defense (DOD)'s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). The parties involved on this project are the Navy (NFESC, Port Hueneme, California); EPA (NRMRL in Cincinnati, Ohio and Ada, Oklahoma); University of Texas, Austin, Texas (Gary Pope's Group); and the University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma (Jeff Harwell and others). While SERDP focuses primarily on technical issues, ESTCP focuses on implementation issues as well. The main goals of the project are to:

After a lengthy search, Ms. Yeh's team chose Camp Lejeune in North Carolina as the site for their demonstration project. Initial site characterization was initiated in July 1997 and was split into two phases. During Phase I, which involved a geoprobe investigation, the team located DNAPL. Phase II involved installing wells for a pump test. Additional site characterization studies were conducted in November 1997. Representatives from Camp Lejeune were surprised to learn that their site was extensively contaminated with DNAPL. Although site characterization studies had been conducted in the past, none of the wells had been deep enough to find the DNAPL. The facility is very interested in the work that Ms. Yeh's team is conducting and have discussed the possibility of making the test pilot area larger than originally anticipated.

In December 1997, Ms. Yeh's team installed the wells for the tracer tests and surfactant flushing demonstration. The well formation includes three injection wells, six extraction wells, and two wells that will be used for hydraulic control. As advised by Dr. Pope, the team is now considering installing two additional hydraulic control wells. Additionally, three wells were installed to remove free-phase DNAPL.

Activities planned for the future include:

To date, the team has encountered several challenges:

Proposed Joint DOD/Department of Energy (DOE)/EPA Demonstration
Mr. Randy Wolf, BDM International Air Force Research Laboratory

Mr. Wolf explained that DOD, DOE, and EPA are working together to identify a site to test DNAPL remediation technologies simultaneously. This team has had considerable difficulty finding a site because they are looking for a site that meets the following criteria:

The five sites that are being most seriously considered are: Hill AFB, Utah; Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida; Kennedy Space Center, Florida; Scott AFB, Illinois, and Kelly AFB, Texas. The team would prefer not to pick Hill AFB, simply because so many demonstrations have already been conducted at this site. At this point, the team is leaning towards Cape Canaveral Air Station, because TCE (up to 500 ppm) is the primary contaminant and the site meets most of the desired criteria.

Once a site is chosen, the team will review the candidate technologies and recommend a few innovative technologies to test in side-by-side test cells. In 1995, an Air Force panel cited the following DNAPL remediation technologies as the most promising:

These technologies have been demonstrated by the Air Force, EPA, and numerous universities at Hill AFB Operable Unit 1 and will be demonstrated at the Dover AFB GRFL. At Hill AFB, contaminant revoval efficiencies of 88 percent to 95 percent were achieved. Several attendees suggested that costs for these technologies can be drastically reduced (perhaps to less than $50 per cubic meter) if the flushing fluids are recycled.

In addition to the mass-removal technologies listed above, DOE will also select several of its in situ destruction technologies for consideration in the joint demonstration.

Once the site is chosen, an expert panel will be convened to choose which technologies should be tested. The panel may choose one, two, or three of the above-listed technologies, or may decide on another type of innovative technology. Due to cuts in technology funding, newer innovative technologies that are not as far advanced as the three above-listed technologies are not likely to be chosen. The group hopes to have the site and the technologies chosen by the next RTDF meeting.

Results of Surfactant and Partitioning Interwell Tracer Test at Louisiana Site
Dr. George Losonsky, IT Corporation

Dr. Losonsky described a pilot project that he performed near the gulf coast of Louisiana. He may be contacted for information (see Attachment A).


Mr. Steimle asked the participants for the names of new demonstration projects that are getting underway. The audience listed the following locations:

In Situ Flushing

Action Team Meeting

Sheraton Grand Hotel
Irving, TX
January 7­8, 1998

Final Attendee List

Michael Annable
Assistant Professor
University of Florida
217 Black Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2013
Fax: 352-392-3076

Steve Byrne
Regulatory Services Manager
Cytec Industries
1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Fax: 973-425-0185

Thomas Early
Senior Development Staff
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Bethel Valley Road - Building 1509
P.O. Box 2008 (MS 6400)
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6400
Fax: 423-574-7420

Carl Enfield
Senior Research Scientist
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
(MS 235)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Fax: 513-569-7571

Carol English
Cytec Industries
P.O. Box 31
Linden, NJ 07036
Fax: 908-862-4163

Bart Faulkner
Environmental Engineer
Subsurface Protection and
Remediation Division
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
Fax: 405-436-8582

Stephanie Fiorenza
Assistant Program
Manager, AATDF
Energy and Environmental
Systems Institute
Rice University
6100 Main Street (MS 316)
Houston, TX 77005-1892
Fax: 713-285-5948

Jon Ginn
Technical Project Manager
U.S. Air Force - OO-ALC/EMR
7274 Wardleigh Road
Hill AFB, UT 84056-5137
Fax: 801-777-4306
E-mail: ginnj@

Jeff Harwell
University of Oklahoma
100 East Boyd - SEC, T335
Norman, OK 73019-0628
Fax: 405-325-5813

Mark Hasegawa
Operations Manager
Surbec Environmental
3200 Marshall Avenue - Suite 200
Norman, OK 73072
Fax: 405-366-1798

Anthony Holder
Research Scientist
Environmental Science
and Engineering
Rice University
6100 Main Street (MS 317)
Houston, TX 77005
Fax: 713-285-5239

C. Wayne Ives
New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
Fax: 603-271-2456

Richard Jackson
Manager, Geosystems
Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
9111 Research Boulevard
Austin, TX 78750
Fax: 512-425-2099

Richard Jahnke
Technology Manager,
Commerical Development
Lubrizol Corporation
29400 Lakeland Boulevard
Wickliffe, OH 44092-2298
Fax: 440-944-6847

John Londergan
Senior Hydrogeologist
Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
9111 Research Boulevard
Austin, TX 78758
Fax: 512-425-2099

George Losonsky
Project Manager
IT Corporation
One Lakeshore Drive - Suite 1810
Lake Charles, LA 70629
Fax: 318-436-3244

Donald Lowe
Assistant Program Manager
Energy and Environmental
Systems Institute
Rice University
6100 Main Street (MS 316)
Houston, TX 77005-1892
Fax: 713-285-5945

Clarence Miller
Department of
Chemical Engineering
Rice University
6100 Main Street (MS 362)
Houston, TX 77005-1892
Fax: 713-285-5478

Ken Moor
Scientific Specialist
Assessment Technology
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory
P.O. Box 1625
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Fax: 208-526-0603

Randy Parker
Environmental Engineer
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Fax: 513-569-7143

Gary Pope
Director, Center for Petroleum and
Geosystems Engineering
The University of Texas at Austin
CPE 2.502 (MC-C0300)
26th Street & Speedway Boulevard
Austin, TX 78712
Fax: 512-471-9678

Bill Rixey
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
University of Houston
Cullen Engineering Building
4800 Calhoun
Houston, TX 77204-4791
Fax: 713-743-4260

Richard Schoenfeld
Commerical Development
Lubrizol Corporation
29400 Lakeland Boulevard
Wickliffe, OH 44092-2298
Fax: 440-944-6847

Stephen Shoemaker
Consulting Associate
DuPont Company
140 Cypress Station Drive
Suite 140
Houston, TX 77090
Fax: 281-586-5650
E-mail: stephen.h.shoemaker@

Mike Shook
Advisory Scientist
Idaho National Engineering
& Environmental Laboratory
P.O. Box 1625
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-2107
Fax: 208-526-0875

Randall Sillan
Hydrologic Sciences
University of Florida
2169 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611
Fax: 352-392-3902

Richard Steimle
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: 703-603-9135
E-mail: steimle.richard@

Leland Vane
Chemical Engineer
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
(MS 443)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Fax: 513-569-7677

Kevin Warner
Senior Engineer
Southeast Region
3382 Capital Circle, NE
Tallahassee, FL 32308
Fax: 850-422-2624

Richard Willey
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building (HBS)
Boston, MA 02203
Fax: 617-573-9662

Randy Wolf
Environmental Engineer
BDM International
Air Force Research Laboratory, Airbase
and Environmental
Technology Division
139 Barnes Drive - Suite 2
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5323
Fax: 850-283-6064
E-mail: randy_wolf@

Lynn Wood
Soil Scientist
Subsurface Protection and
Remediation Division
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Center
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
Fax: 405-436-8582

Kathleen Yager
Environmental Engineer
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: 703-603-9135
E-mail: yager.kathleen@

S. Laura Yeh
Chemical Engineer
Naval Facilities
Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue (ESC 411)
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Fax: 805-982-4304

RTDF logistical and technical
support provided by:

Christine Hartnett
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
2903B Robinson Avenue
Austin, TX 78722

Susan Brager Murphy
Conference Manager
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02173-3134
Fax: 781-674-2906

Carolyn Perroni
Management Support, Inc.
8601 Georgia Avenue - Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Fax: 301-589-8487

Laurie Stamatatos
Conference Coordinator
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02173-3134
Fax: 781-674-2906