alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equ ipment

Costs: Clarifiers

This telephone contact report supports EPA’s development of purchased equipment cost equations for clarifiers
by documenting EPA's communication with a vendor regarding purc hase costs for solids contact clarifiers used

in the Steam Electric cost model.Project No.: 0172.08.029.044 DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: Steam/Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 04/12/2011 Time: 12:00 pm EST

Company Name: Siemens Contact Name: Thomas Dumbaugh

Phone No.:(515)-268-8549 Email address: thomas.dumbaugh@siemens.com

Name: Kavya Kasturi ERG

GENERAL SUBJECT: Vendor cost request for Solids contact clarifiers for a chemical precipitation wastewater tre atment system.



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On April 12, 2011 at 12:00 pm I contacted Mr. Thomas Dumbaugh. I explained to Mr. Dumbaugh that we are
working on conceptual level costing of a chemical precipi tation wastewater treatment system to treat FGD (flue
gas desulfurization) wastewater from steam electric pow er plants, and as a part of this project we are trying to
collect cost information on different components or unit s of a chemical precipitation system.

I told Mr. Dumbaugh that we would like to obtain purchase co sts (including ancillary equipment), power
requirements and any available marketing material or broc hures for solids contact clarifiers for flow rates
ranging from 7 gpm to 700 gpm. I explained to Mr. Dumbaugh the gen eral set up of the chemical precipitation
system as well as the characteristics of the FGD wa stewater. I specifically stated that the chlorides leve ls could
range from 2,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm.

Mr. Dumbaugh indicated that the smallest size solids con tact clarifier would accommodate a flow rate of 100
gpm. For flow rates under 100 gpm, Mr. Dumbaugh suggested using pla stic tanks with a mixer.

Mr. Dumbaugh provided costs for a range of flow rates. He indicated the costs included all internal equipment

but did not include the cost of the basin. He said a conc rete basin is typically used. The costs also do not include
installation, which is typically two to three times th e purchase cost. Also, Mr. Dumbaugh stated that the cost s are for all steel equipment, which would accommodate ou r lower chlorides level of 2,000 ppm but would not be
appropriate for higher chlorides levels. Mr. Dumbaugh indi cated he would provide a multiplier that could be
applied to the costs to account for using a material appropr iate for the chlorides range we expect.

The costs for the clarifiers are provided below:

Flow (gpm) Diameter (ft) Cost ($)

100 12 $118,000

140 14 $122,000

250 18 $130,000

350 22 $150,000

470 26 $162,000

550 28 $168,000

700 32 $185,000



### Mr. Dumbaugh stated no other ancillary equipment was require d. Additionally, he stated that the power
requirements were based on the motor starters. The mi xer drive would range from 2 hp for the smallest unit to 5
hp for the largest unit. The scraper drive would be 0.25 hp fo r the largest unit.
<PAGE>

                                                                       EXHIBIT 2

                           USA BIOMASS CORPORATION
                       PLAN OF DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

                             December 22, 1998

The expansion of the Company's biomass operations and entry into solid waste 
transportation has resulted in the decision to discontinue the Company's 
agribusiness and real estate operations.

During fiscal 1998, the Company sold 510 acres of table grape and date 
properties and its 600-acre Rancho California real estate parcel. The 
remaining agribusiness operations consist of a 560-acre table grape vineyard 
and a cold storage processing operation.

In December 1998, the Company leased the 560-acre table grape vineyard for 
the 1999 crop year and terminated its agribusiness employees. The vineyard 
and related equipment is being marketed and is expected to be sold by 
December 22, 1999. The appraised value of this property is $4.5 million, 
which after costs associated with its sale, is expected to be in excess of 
carrying value. The lease payments reimbursed the Company for farming costs 
incurred prior to the lease will pay debt service and other costs through the 
expected date of sale.

The Company's obligations of $13,000 per month with respect to the cold 
storage processing facility expire in May 1999 and will not be renewed.

The Company's remaining real estate assets are a golf-oriented housing 
development near San Antonio, Texas, which the Company is developing for a 
managed limited partnership, and a 50% joint venture interest in a 6,000-acre 
parcel of land in Oregon leased to a potato and grain farming operation.

The Company has offered the Texas property for sale in bulk and expects it to 
be sold in fiscal 1999. The current appraised value of the Texas property is 
$12.1 million. It is expected, based upon discussions with real estate 
marketing professionals, that the property can be sold in bulk within one 
year at between $11.0 million and $12.0 million. The estimated cost 
associated with this project until sale is $870,000.

The current appraised value of the property owned by the joint venture is 
$7.0 million, and there is $2.1 million of joint venture debt, which is 
collateralized by this property. The value of the Company's joint venture 
interest is therefore $2.5 million, which approximates the carrying value of 
the joint venture interest. The lease payments received by the joint venture 
are sufficient to pay debt service and administrative costs. Therefore, there 
is no cost of carry on this investment to the Company.

The Company's interest in the joint venture has been offered to the other 
venture partner. The interest will be offered for sale to others if the joint 
venture partner does not acquire the Company's interest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                      
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars               
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997         
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-29-1997   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1   
<CASH>                               682,356    
<SECURITIES>                       4,050,873  
<RECEIVABLES>                        811,417  
<ALLOWANCES>                          49,701  
<INVENTORY>                        1,633,631  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   7,234,356  
<PP&E>                             4,506,477  
<DEPRECIATION>                     2,955,971  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    10,178,549  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              2,209,782  
<BONDS>                                    0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0  
<PREFERRED>                          375,000  
<COMMON>                             144,362  
<OTHER-SE>                         7,120,155  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      10,178,549  
<SALES>                            1,409,801  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,409,801  
<CGS>                                934,872  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        934,872  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1,622,283  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0  
<INCOME-TAX>                               0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (1,071,737)  
<DISCONTINUED>                             0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0  
<CHANGES>                                  0  
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,071,737)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (.37) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.37) 
        


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.755 Protecting cast-iron pipelines. When an operator has knowledge that the support for a segment of a buried cast-iron pipeline is disturbed: ( a ) That segment of the pipeline must be protected, as necessary, against damage during the disturbance by: ( 1 ) Vibrations from heavy construction equipment, trains, trucks, buses, or blasting;
( 2 ) Impact forces by vehicles;
( 3 ) Earth movement;
( 4 ) Apparent future excavations near the pipeline; or
( 5 ) Other foreseeable outside forces which may subject that segment of the pipeline to bending stress.
( b ) As soon as feasible, appropriate steps must be taken to provide permanent protection for the disturbed segment from damage that might result from external loads, including compliance with applicable requirements of §§ 192.317(a), 192.319, and 192.361(b)-(d).
[Amdt. 192-23, 41 FR 13589, Mar. 31, 1976]
§ 178.519 Standards for plastic film bags. ( a ) The identification code for a plastic film bag is 5H4.
( b ) Construction requirements for plastic film bags are as follows: ( 1 ) Bags must be made of a suitable plastic material. The strength of the material used and the construction of the bag must be appropriate to the capacity and the intended use of the bag. Joints and closures must be capable of withstanding pressures and impacts liable to occur under normal conditions of transportation.
( 2 ) Maximum net mass: 50 kg (110 pounds).
From: hkurow39@sbcglobal.net [mailto:hkurow39@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:50 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Hilda Kurowski 

1009 Vassar Dr 

Davis, CA 95616
From: pumpkinfarm@ameritech.net [mailto:pumpkinfarm@ameritech.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:09 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

John Cameron 

4587 Jackson Dr 

West Bend, WI 53095
Exhibit 32.1



EXHIBIT 32.1

BIOVEST INTERNATIONAL, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Biovest International, Inc. (the Company) on Form10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dr. Stephane Allard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Dr. Stephane Allard              
|Dr. Stephane Allard                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|August 23, 2004
-----Original Message----- 

From: lscarb@embarqmail.com [mailto:lscarb@embarqmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:57 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Lynn Scarborough 

908 Cedar Grove Rd. 

Johnson City, TN 37601
Exhibit 10.1



|     |                                     |                       
|---- | ----------------------------------- | ----------------------
|LOGO |                                     | 2309 S. Macdill Avenue
|     | Tampa, FL 33629                    
|     | Tel: 813-769-5600                  
|     | Fax: 813-769-5601                  
|     | Senders Email: rrocke@rmslegal.com
|     | Direct Dial: 813-769-5610          

February 22, 2008

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Samuel
S. Duffy, Esq.

General Counsel

Accentia Biopharmeaceuticals,
Inc.

324 South Hyde Park Avenue, Suite 350

Tampa, Florida
33606



| | Re: | Biovest International, Inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------

Dear Sam:

As we have discussed, we are willing to accept payment as outlined below for satisfaction in full of the outstanding invoices listed on the attached
account statements, aggregating outstanding charges of $27,260.00.



| | * |  | $14,821.00 to be paid in cash. $8,000 to be paid in March 2008 and the balance to be paid in April 2008;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | * |  | The balance of the invoice equal to $ 12,439.00 to be paid through the issuance of 11,309 shares of common stock in Biovest (based on a market value of $1.10) (the
Shares) issued in the noted increments to Robert Rocke (3,769), Robert McLean (3,769) and Jonathan Sbar (3,769).
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | * |  | In the event that the Shares remain restricted for any reason following the conclusion of the non-affiliate 6 month holding period under Rule 144, Biovest agrees to
keep its 1934 Act reporting current and take any other necessary steps to facilitate the sale of the Shares under Rule 144, as revised.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this conforms with your understanding, please proceed to issue the Shares as soon as possible. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

LOGO

Robert L. Rocke

RLR/vw



|cc: | Robert D. McLean, Esq.
|--- | ----------------------

| | Jonathan B. Sbar, Esq.
| | ----------------------
#### F. V. Smith Contracting Company, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

*Smith Contracting Co.*v. *City of New York,*128 App. Div. 926, affirmed.

(Argued January 10, 1911;

decided January 24, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered *591November 19, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract.

*L. Laflin Kellogg*and *Alfred C. Petté*for appellant.

*Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley*and *Theodore Connoly*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner and Collin, JJ. Not voting: Hiscock, J.
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Nanette Abraham certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the small business issuer; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions); a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date:May 1, 2007By:/s/Nanette AbrahamNanette Abraham, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
#### § 21.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to effectuate the provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereafter referred to as the Act) to the end that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50220

Conference Calendar

 

CHRIS HOWARD McDANIEL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

LESTER E. FLEMING, Warden, 

Federal Correctional Institution Bastrop,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A:97-CV-654

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chris Howard McDaniel appeals the district court’s denial of

his application for writ of habeas corpus. He challenges his

ineligibility to receive a sentence reduction for successfully

completing a substance abuse treatment program due to the Bureau

of Prisons’ (“BOP”) determination that a defendant who receives a

sentence enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon is

ineligible for the reduction because it only applies to

nonviolent offenders. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2); BOP Program 
No. 98-50220 

-2-

Statement No. 5612.02, Section 9. McDaniel argues that BOP

Program Statement No. 5612.02, Section 9, should be set aside

because it is a legislative rule and was not promulgated in

accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-andcomment requirements and because the BOP exceeded its statutory

authority in making this rule. McDaniel’s position lacks merit

because this court has previously determined that this Program

Statement is an interpretive rule not subject to the notice-andcomment requirements of the APA. See Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d

596, 600 (5th Cir. 1998); Venegas v. Henman, 126 F.3d 760, 763

(5th Cir. 1997); see also Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 61 (1995)

(noting BOP program statement was an interpretive guideline not

subject to notice-and-comment requirements).

McDaniel concedes that his contention that the BOP exceeded

its statutory authority by excluding prisoners who receive

sentence enhancements pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) from

eligibility for sentence reductions is meritless in light of our

decision in Venegas. See Venegas, 126 F.3d at 765. 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6359

WILLIE C. CLEMONTS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

OFFICER E. BRYANT; JOHN WILLIAMS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-1065-F)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 2, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie C. Clemonts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Clemonts v. Bryant, No. CA-95-1065-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 1,

1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
-----Original Message----- 

From: eestms@colomail.com [mailto:eestms@colomail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:33 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Earl Stevens 

3847 Cardiff Court 

Loveland, CO 80538