alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Garrity, Jack [JGarrity@asarco.com]

Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:22 AM
To: McKaughan, Colleen Subject: RE: New Court

- Ordered Deadline for Arizona Regional Haze FIP

Thank you Colleen. As you may know, we have retained technical consultants to help us with this, and we will make every effort to inform your process.

Jack

From: McKaughan, Colleen [ mailto:McKaughan.Colleen@epa.gov ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:4 7 PM To: Garrity, Jack
Cc: Nudd, Gregory; GLASS, GEOFFREY; Chen, Eugene; Kelly, Shaheerah; Webb, Thomas; ecm@azdeq.gov Subject: New Court

- Ordered Deadline for Arizona Regional Haze FIP

Dear Jack,

I’m writing to let yo u know that the court

- ordered deadline for EPA to propose a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in Arizona has been extended to September 6, 2013. Our deadline for final action on Arizona’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) remains Jul y 15, 2013. The deadline for commenting on our December 20, 2012 proposed action on Arizona’s SIP is March 6, 2013.

If EPA finalizes disapproval of any aspect of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, we are obligated to propose and later finalize a FIP to address these disapproved portions. The deadlines for these proposed and final actions are set in a consent decree. The parties to the consent decree recently agreed to extend these deadlines and the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia issu ed an order granting a motion to amend the consent decree to reflect these new deadlines. The new deadlines of September 6, 2013 for the proposed action and February 6, 2014 for the final action provide the agency more time for the technical work that will form the
basis of the FIP.

If you are planning to provide technical information that you think would be helpful to EPA in preparing our FIP proposal, please provide that information no later than May 10, 2013 . This will allow us enough time to review and consider the information in preparing the proposal.

In the case of the equipment you identified as BART

- eligible (anode furnaces 1 and 2 and converters 1, 3, 4, and 5) in Hayden, Arizona, we are particularly interested in getting your
fe edback regarding the effectiveness of existing SO 2 and PM controls and the estimated costs of installing more effective SO 2 and PM controls and increasing the effectiveness of existing controls. You may also propose your own five factor BART analyses for S O 2 and PM for the

BART

- eligible units.

If you have any questions, please let me know. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Colleen McKaughan
No. 10-7482.

#### Dennis Robert Smith, Petitioner v. Richard Bock, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1185, 131 S. Ct. 1009,

178 L. Ed. 2d 838,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 871.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-7577.

#### Alma Morales-Vega, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1155, 131 S. Ct. 950,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 379.

178 L. Ed. 2d 784,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 158.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: ANITA DEJAYNES, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT 

FRIEND OF A.D., N.M.D., AND 

E.M.D., MINOR CHILDREN,

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00075-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Anita DeJaynes, Individually and as Next Friend of A.D., N.M.D., and E.M.D., 

Minor Children, filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Honorable Mike Swanson, Judge 

of the 143rd District Court of Ward County, Texas, requesting that we order Respondent to rule 

on Relator’s motion for approval of attorney’s fees and to enter final judgment. Relator 

subsequently filed a joint motion to dismiss the original proceeding as moot because Respondent 

entered an order on May 22, 2018 resolving the motion for attorney’s fees and entered final 

judgment. The original proceeding is moot. Accordingly, we grant the joint motion and dismiss 

the original proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. See In re County of El Paso, 104 S.W.3d 741, 743 

(Tex.App.--El Paso 2003, orig. proceeding).

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

June 13, 2018

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17237]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Maryland Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Maryland Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 9:30 
a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m. on July 16, 1998, at the University of 
Maryland at Baltimore School of Law--Moot Court Room, 500 West 
Baltimore Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201. The Committee will hold a 
forum for Korean Americans, government officials, and others to speak 
on the topic, ``City Services, Public Safety, and the Justice System: 
Do Korean American Storeowners in Baltimore Get Equal Treatment?''
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Chester L. 
Wickwire, 410-825-8949, or Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern 
Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten 
(10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, June 19, 1998.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 98-17237 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0660n.06 No. 09-4308 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT RANDYMILLER, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. AL LSTA TE I N S U R

AN C E C O M P AN Y a nd AL LSTA TE P RO P ER TY& C ASU AL TY INSURANCE COMP ANY, De fend ant s- App e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED ST A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T HE NO RT HER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O

Be for e : M ERRI TT, G IBBO NS, and C OOK, C ir c uit Judg e s. JULIA SMITH GIBBONS , Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellee Randy Miller appea ls the decision of the district c ourt to grant the motion for summary judgme nt f iled by Def endant- Appellee Al lst a te I ns uran ce Com

pa ny (“ Al lst a te ” ) a

nd de ny Mil le r’ s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt. Th is dispute involves an i nsuranc e poli cy issued by Allstate to Miller and that policy ’s scope with respec t t o d am age cau s edb y a fi re an d t h e C i t y o f C l ev el an d ’s s u

b s equ en td em o l i t i o no f c ert ai nb u i l d i n gs on the prope rty . After

car efully re v iewingthe re cord, the applicable law, the pa rties’ brie fs, and havinghad the be nefit of or al ar gu m ent, we f ind that the district court’s opinion dilige ntly and

c or re c tly se ts o ut t he un dis pute d f

a c ts a nd the g ov e rn ing law. B e c a

us e thi s c ourt ’s iss ua

nc e of a fu ll opinion would be duplicative and w ould se rve no jurisprudential purpose, we aff irm on the basis of the district court’s w ell-re asoned or der of J uly 20, 2009, g rant i n g Al l state’s motion for summary judgme nt.
No. 10-6802.

#### Brandon Dejuan Edwards, Petitioner v. Michigan.

562 U.S. 1093, 131 S. Ct. 800,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9549.

178 L. Ed. 2d 535,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
804 000

AÑOS DE VIDA

GANADOS

ESTIMACIÓN

129 000 

ESTIMACIÓN

MUERTES PREMATURAS

EVITADAS

1.38

millones

ESTIMACIÓN

DE AÑOS DE VIDA GANADOS 

AJUSTADOS POR CALIDAD

$7 300

millones

ESTIMACIÓN

AHORRADOS EN COSTOS 

DE ATENCIÓN MÉDICA 

RELACIONADOS CON 

EL TABAQUISMO

Ayuda a las personas 

a dejar de fumar 

Mejora los resultados 

de salud 

Reduce los costos de la 

atención médica

Impacto de la campaña 

Consejos de exfumadores®

de los CDC

Infórmese sobre cómo la campaña Consejos de exfumadores®

de los CDC continúa salvando vidas y reduciendo los costos 

de la atención médica: CDC.gov/ImpactoDeConsejos

La campaña Consejos de exfumadores ® presenta historias convincentes de personas de la vida real 

que viven con graves problemas de salud a largo plazo debido al tabaquismo y a la exposición al humo 

de segunda mano.

Desde el 2012 hasta el 2018, la campaña se asoció a:
#### Com. v. Miller

08/10/2016

154 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 144 A.3d 206
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      573,339
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     20,016
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          39,914
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        37,635
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 670,904
<COMMON>                                       152,208
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      (3,845)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             45,560
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 193,923
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     12,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           247,298
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              23,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       30
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 194,653
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  670,904
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      133,826
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            10,487
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      86,686
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      97,173
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         36,653
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 760
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  37,413
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        17,340
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,073
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        813
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   19,260
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        16,134
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       14,807
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          30,985
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.41<F1>
<FN>
<F1>All amounts in thousands of dollars except per share amounts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014024EN.01004103.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/41

---

Action brought on 11 November 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-110/13)

2014/C 24/78

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission decision excluding the applicant from the list of candidates authorised to attend the ‘certification’ training programme in 2013.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 April 2013 excluding the applicant from the list of candidates authorised to attend the ‘certification’ training programme in 2013 (Administrative Notice No 13-2013); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 April 2013 excluding the applicant from the list of candidates authorised to attend the ‘certification’ training programme in 2013 (Administrative Notice No 13-2013);

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the Commission decision of 30 July 2013, dismissing the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the Commission decision of 30 July 2013, dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

| — | award the applicant damages in the amount of EUR 10 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant damages in the amount of EUR 10 000;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
No. 03-15-00490-CR & 03-15-00491-CR

ERNEST PEREZ V. THE STATE OF TEXAS ) ) ) IN COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS APPELLANT’S FIRST MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Ernest Perez, Appellant, through counsel, Ken Mahaffey, and respectfully moves to extend the time for filing the Appellant’s Brief in the above styled and numbered cause. In support thereof, Appellant would show the Court the following: 1. JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION . The judgment being appealed was imposed in the 274th District Court of Hays County on July 6, 2015. Appellant was convicted of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Felon and Possession of Methamphetamine more than 4 grams but less than 200 grams. 2. APPELLANT IN CUSTODY . Appellant was sentenced to 30 years and is currently serving that sentence. 3. DATE BRIEF DUE . Appellant’s brief is due on November 9, 2015. 4. FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION . This is the first motion for extension of time to file a brief filed by either party. Page 1 ACCEPTED 03-15-00490-CR 7730564 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/9/2015 8:13:14 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK5. RE A SO N FO R E X T E NSIO N
. C ounse l ha s be e n re quire d to work on othe r

a ppe lla te m a tte rs during thela st thirty da y s. The se are ide n tifie d a s follows:
a . Pre p ara tion of M o tion for R e he aring in Arte aga v . State , No. 13-13-00612- C R & 13-13-00613-C R ; b. Pre p ara tion of a

Pe tition for Disc re t iona

ry R e vie w in Manue l v . State , 01-14-00107-C R
. 6. DURAT I O N O F E X T E NSIO N SO UG H T
. Appe lla nt re spe c tfully re que sts this C ourt grant a

n e xte nsion of tim e for thirty (30) da y s to file its brie f i n this c a use . 7. E X T E NSIO N R E ASO NAB L E
. An e xte nsion of tim e would be re a sona ble be c a use it will fa c ilita

te the prope r re se a

rc h a nd brie fing of the issue s in this c a use .

PRAYE R FO R RE L IE F W HEREFORE, PR EM ISES C ONSIDERED, Appe lla nt re spe c tfully m ove s to
e xte nd the tim e for filing theAppe l la nt’ s B rie f in this c a

use by thirty (30) da y s.

R e s pe c tfully

Subm itte d,

Ke n M aha ffe y C o unse l for Appe lla

n t P.O. B ox 684585 Austin, Te x a s 78768 (512) 444-6557 St. B ar. No. 12830050 K e n Mahaffe

y @y a hoo.c om Pag e 2CE RT IFICAT E O F SE RV I CE

The a bove signa

ture c e rtifie s that on Nove m be r 6 , 2015, t

his doc um e nt wa s se nt by e le c tronic se rvic e to the Ha y s C ounty

D.A.’ s Offic e and by

m a il to Erne st Pe re z , 02016895, 295 I.H. 45 North, Huntsville , TX 77320-8443.

Pag e 3
1

Werner, Christopher

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:11 PM

To: Werner, Christopher; Lorang, Phil

Subject: Summary of Additional Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM 

-- Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-

AS55)

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_13563_RHR NPRM_03222016.docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed

Categories: Regional Haze

Attached please find the summary of additional interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for the draft 

proposed rule entitled, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55). 

Aaron L. Szabo 

Policy Analyst 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

202-395-3621 

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
AD-ID: VCDC1393000H

SPOT TITLE: Noel S_Age 36 Tip_AVO2_15_URL

LENGTH: :15

AS-RECORDED SCRIPT:

ART CARD: A TIP FROM A FORMER SMOKER®

 

SUPER: Noel, 42, New York

We see Noel speaking to camera. He is wearing a dark grey button up. 

NOEL: Did you know it’s possible to have a heart attack at age 36? I didn’t. Here’s a 

tip. If you smoke, it’s totally possible. 

(Sirens)

Cut to a zoomed out clip of Noel speaking to camera, revealing he is in a hospital.

NOEL: That’s what happened to me.

 

ART CARD: Quitting smoking reduces the risk of heart disease.

ANNCR: You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/TIPS 

ART CARD: You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/TIPS

Logo/legal: CDC

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

#CDCTips
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6700

VICTOR WARDELL WRIGHT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cv-03035-DKC; 8:19-cv-01874-

DKC)

Submitted: December 22, 2020 Decided: December 29, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Wardell Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Victor Wardell Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order placing his case in 

abeyance pending resolution of United States v. Proctor, No. 19-7071. This court may 

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Wright seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In light of this disposition, we deny Wright’s motion to 

amend. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Nexplore Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”),
I, David Lazar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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), as applicable, 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.



|Dated: June 24, 2020 | By: | /s/ David Lazar                                              
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | David Lazar                                                  
|                     |     | Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)
SPOT TITLE: Noel S. Vignette

LENGTH: 1:03

AD-ID: VCDC1421000

AS-RECORDED SCRIPT:

ART CARD: MENTHOL’S HARSH REALITY

 A Former Smoker’s Story

We see Noel in a dimly lit kitchen pouring himself a cup of coffee.

NOEL: When I was growing up in Brooklyn cigarettes was so accessible and at the time everybody 

smoked. 

Cut to Noel speaking to camera sitting at a table. He is wearing a blue plaid button up shirt over a black t 

shirt.

Super: Noel S., 42

New York

Cut to Noel standing in a dimly lit kitchen and drinking from a mug. You see him walk towards a front 

door and get his coat and keys.

NOEL: It was advertisements for menthol cigarettes everywhere you’d look in minority neighborhoods.

ART CARD: TOBACCO COMPANIES TARGET MANY COMMUNITIES WITH MENTHOL ADVERTISING.

Cut to Noel walking out the door.

NOEL: Menthol is very addictive.

Cut to Noel sitting at a table and talking to camera.

NOEL: I would wake up in the middle of the night to smoke a cigarette to go back to sleep. 

Cut to Noel walking out his front door.

NOEL: Long term I thought they were safer because the menthol camouflages the harshness.

ART CARD: MENTHOLS ARE JUST AS DAMAGING AS OTHER CIGARETTES.

Cut to a close up of Noel walking around a corner outside. Cut to Noel speaking to camera inside sitting 

by the table.

NOEL: I was living in Harlem and I was smoking a cigarette and I caught a very bad chest pain. This chest 

pain was scary.

Cut to a profile view of Noel driving.
NOEL: When I got to the hospital I parked my vehicle 

Cut to a close up of Noel speaking to camera.

NOEL: ...directly in front of the ambulance and told the ambulance guys listen I think I'm having a heart 

attack.

Cut to Noel driving. Cut to a close up of Noel speaking to camera.

NOEL: You don't want to be like me you don't want to have a massive heart attack at the age of 36.

ART CARD: You can quit. For free help, visit CDC.GOV/QUIT

Logo/legal: CDC

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

#CDCTips
Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature: Project No.: 0 317.0 1.005.510 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: DMR20 11 

### CBI?

Yes

No TELEPHONE CALL RECOR D

Incoming

Outgoing Date: 12/13 /13 Time: 1: 45 am

pm

Company Name: Sanford Springs Water Treatment Plant ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Bartell

Contact Name: Tim Ransom Contact Phone Number: ( 256) 447

- 3391

General Subject: 2011 DMR Discharges for Sanford Springs Water Treatment Plant



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

County Water Department : 256

- 927

- 8348

Water Treatment Plant (Tim Ransom): 256

- 447

- 3391

On December 13 th , I called the county water department and was given the water treatment plant phone number.

I called the water treatment plant and spoke with Tim Ransom. He confirmed the aluminum concentrations for

outfall 001. The flow values are the correct number, but the units are incorrect. The units should be gallons per

minute (GPM) not million gallons per day. Outfall 001 is a backwash/flush outfall for the facility and only

discharges for about 10 minutes per day: the flow rate is low.