alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 8255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3426]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCA-04-2012-3761, FRL-9631-1]

Constitution Road Drum Superfund Site, Atlanta, Dekalb County, 
GA; Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Settlement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency has entered into a settlement for past response costs concerning 
the Constitution Road Drum Superfund Site located in Atlanta, Dekalb 
County, Georgia.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until 
March 15, 2012. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received 
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. 
Painter. Submit your comments by Site name Constitution Road Drum 
Superfund Site by one of the following methods:
    http://www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/enforcement/enforcement.html.
     Email: Painter.Paula@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: January 27, 2012.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund 
Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-3426 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW. Policy Memo 10-1

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2646-South Building

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250

NOP PM 10-1 ACA Inspection Authority Rev02 10 25 11 Authorized Distribution: Public 

Page 1 of 1

Policy Memorandum

To: Accredited Certifying Agents and State Organic Programs

From: Miles McEvoy, Deputy Administrator

Subject: Accredited Certifying Agent Inspection Authority

Date: Original Issue Date – June 25, 2010

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS),

National Organic Program (NOP) operates under the authority of the Organic Foods Production

Act of 1990 (OFPA) and the Federal Regulations contained in Title 7, Part 205 et seq. of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. Under this authority, the NOP accredits private businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies to certify producers and handlers of agricultural 

products in accordance with NOP regulations.

Subpart F of the NOP regulations establish requirements that certifiers must meet in order to be 

accredited as a NOP accredited certifying agent. These requirements are designed to ensure that 

all organic certifying agents act consistently and impartially as well as implement procedures to 

prevent conflict of interest. Pursuant to paragraph 205.403(a) of the NOP regulations, the AMS

Administrator or State Organic Program’s governing State official may require that additional 

inspections be performed by a certifying agent for the purpose of determining compliance with 

the Act and NOP regulations.

In order to avoid potential conflicts of interests, the NOP and its recognized State Organic

Programs will refrain from directing certifiers to conduct organic compliance inspections of 

organic producers or handlers who are either not certified or certified by another certifying agent.

Similarly, certifying agents will not initiate inspections of operations that are certified by another 

certifying agent or uncertified operations who have not applied to them for certification

References:

NOP Regulations (as amended to date)

7 CFR § 205.403 On-site inspections.

(a) On-site inspections.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 CITY OF SANTA FE, ex rel.

3 SANTA FE POLICE DEPARTMENT,

4 Petitioner-Appellee,

5 v. NO. 34,091

6 ONE (1) 2002 TAN NISSAN FRONTIER,

7 VIN 1N6DD26S92C384983, NEW MEXICO 

8 LICENSE NO. 420SLN,

9 Respondent,

10 and

11 GILBERT L. BACA and MARCO BACA,

12 Claimants-Appellants.

13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY

14 Sylvia Lamar, District Judge 

15 Office of the City Attorney

16 R. Alfred Walker

17 Santa Fe, NM 

18 for Appellee

19 Gilbert Baca
2

1 Marco Baca

2 Santa Fe, NM 

3 Pro Se Appellants

4 MEMORANDUM OPINION

5 WECHSLER, Judge.

6 {1} Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

7 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has

8 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

9 {2} Accordingly, we dismiss for the reasons stated in our calendar notice.

10 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 __________________________________

12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

13 WE CONCUR:

14 _________________________________

15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

16 _________________________________

17 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
f

EO. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

;td <^ Atg

Ci^w 3-/IX

state omems g

PEMALTYF©^

EUSE o-D:£fc

RE: WR-81,144-01

RORYLEEBECK

TDC# 1818374

TX 77583

'In.I,.71/..I. I ii i ...

^«\

^

$

«TIMtV BO

F WD
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2001
<CASH>                                          146779
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   143650
<ALLOWANCES>                                     11393
<INVENTORY>                                     267189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                582343
<PP&E>                                         1072644
<DEPRECIATION>                                  854296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  800691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            94223
<BONDS>                                         123351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    2361440
<COMMON>                                        969834
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2748157)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    800691
<SALES>                                        2129785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2136455
<CGS>                                          1665882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   386058
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 20813
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  54687
<INCOME-TAX>                                     12403
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     42284
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JOSEPH NISSIM MARTEL AND ESTER MARTEL, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ON

BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Petitioners

v.

ALLEGHENY COUNTY, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PITTSBURGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND ALLEGHENY COUNTY

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS AND
REVIEW,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 280 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of January, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF QUALITY AND CONDITION 

(PROCESSED FOODS) 

This certificate is receivable in all courts of the United States as prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements

therein contained. It does not excuse failure to comply with any applicable Federal or State laws.

WARNING: Any person who knowingly falsely make, issue, alter, forge, or counterfeit this certificate, or

participate in any such action, is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than

one year, or both (7U.S.C. 1622 (h)).

The conduct of all services and the hiring and licensing of all personnel under the regulations governing such services

shall be accomplished without discrimination as to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political

beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status.

Please refer to this certificate by

number and inspection office.

DATE

APPLICANT ADDRESS

RECEIVER OR BUYER ADDRESS

SOURCE OF SAMPLES PRODUCT INSPECTED

CODE MARKS ON CONTAINERS

EXAMPLE

PRINCIPAL LABEL MARKS

Grade:

Remarks:

Pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), governing the inspection 

certification of the product designated herein, I certify that the quality and condition of the product shown by samples inspected on the above date were as shown, subject to 

any restrictions specified above. 

ADDRESS OF INSPECTION OFFICE SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR

SC-146E (08-2017) Original Certificate
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00044-CR

Cliff Douglas Parker

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1329800R)

April 16, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
RO 11278 

9443.1987(17) 

AUG 18 1987 

Mr. Kevin T. Rookstool 

Mineral By-Products, Inc. 

240 West Elmwood Drive 

Suite 2011 

Dayton, OH 45459 

Dear Mr. Rookstool: 

This is in response to your letter of May 20, 1987, in which 

you asked whether the characteristic of corrosivity, as discussed 

in 40 CFR 261.22, applies only to those wastes which are aqueous 

and or liquid. Section 261.22 presently applies only to aqueous 

and liquid wastes, unless and until EPA promulgates a definition 

of corrosivity for solids. The Agency has no plans to do this at 

the present time. 

Sincerely, 

Original Document signed 

Matthew A. Straus, Chief 

Waste Characterization Branch 

cc: David Friedman 

 Filomena Chau
Exhibit 10(a)

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the use in Registration Statement on Form N-4 (the
"Registration Statement") of our report dated April 25, 2002, relating to the
financial statements of the Prudential Discovery Premier Group Variable Contract
Account, which appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the
use in this Registration Statement, of our report dated February 12, 2002,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of The Prudential Insurance
Company of America, which appears in such Registration Statement. We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration
Statement.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




New York, New York
April 25, 2002



                                      C-13
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE II

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE UNION'S OWN RESOURCES

Article 311

(ex Article 269 TEC)

(ex Article 269 TEC)

The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.

Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources.

The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new categories of own resources or abolish an existing category. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down implementing measures for the Union's own resources system in so far as this is provided for in the decision adopted on the basis of the third paragraph. The Council shall act after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

---
#### Chesley W. RANDALL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 7465.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1963.

*727Erwin A. Cook, Oklahoma City, Old., for appellant.

Robert M. Green, Asst. U. S. Atty., (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., District of Kansas, was with him on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT, LEWIS, and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

For the second time the appellant is before this court seeking relief from a sentence imposed on a plea of guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. In his first application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 we held among other things that his guilty plea was made voluntarily and understandingly. Randall v. United States, 10 Cir., 314 F.2d 800, 801. In his second application he alleges that he was unconstitutionally denied equal protection because a codefendant received a 10-year sentence for the same offense and he, the appellant, received a 15-year sentence. The trial court appointed an attorney, held a hearing without the presence of the appellant, and denied relief after giving an explanation of the reasons for the disparity.

The sentence was within the statutory limits and is not subject to attack under § 2255 on the ground of severity. Jones v. United States, 10 Cir., 323 F.2d 864. Whatever criticism may be made of disparate sentences, the fact remains that circumstances affecting one defendant often justify a different sentence than that imposed on a codefendant. The trial court stated the circumstances which reasonably led it to pronounce different sentences in the situation now under consideration. This is not a case like United States v. Wiley, 7 Cir., 278 F.2d 500, 504, where a more severe sentence was imposed because a defendant elected to stand trial.

The claim that a reversal is necessary because the appellant was not present at the hearing has no merit. On his previous application under § 2255 appellant was present at the hearing which resulted in a holding, affirmed by this court in Randall v. United States, supra, that the plea was made voluntarily and knowingly. The application now before us raised no factual question justifying the presence of the petitioner.

Affirmed.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART FIVE

THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION

THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION

TITLE V

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Article 217

(ex Article 310 TEC)

(ex Article 310 TEC)

The Union may conclude with one or more third countries or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00106-CV

Nell RAMEY,

Appellant

v.

Jessica A. POLLET,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-04119

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

We ORDER all costs of this appeal taxed against appellant Nell Ramey.

SIGNED April 8, 2015.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1411 

To amend the Peace Corps Act to allow former volunteers and officers 

and employees to use the seal, emblem, or name of Peace Corps on 

death announcements and grave stones. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

Mr. SIRES (for himself, Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana, Mr. GARAMENDI, and Mr. 

KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Peace Corps Act to allow former volunteers 

and officers and employees to use the seal, emblem, 

or name of Peace Corps on death announcements and 

grave stones. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Respect for Peace 

5 Corps Volunteers Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1411 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF OFFICIAL SEAL, EMBLEM, AND NAME OF 

2 THE PEACE CORPS. 

3 Subsection (b) of section 19 of the Peace Corps Act 

4 (22 U.S.C. 2518) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the pe6 riod at the end the following: ‘‘, except that the offi7 cial seal or emblem and the name ‘Peace Corps’ may 

8 be used on any death announcement, gravestone, 

9 plaque, or other grave marker of any person who 

10 served as a volunteer or as an officer or employee 

11 of the Peace Corps under such rules as may be pre12 scribed by the Director’’; and 

13 (2) in paragraph (2), in the first sentence, by 

14 inserting ‘‘or in accordance with the exception speci15 fied in paragraph (1),’’ before ‘‘shall be fined’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JESUS PACHECO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10093

D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00017-JSW-2

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 29, 2015** 

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Pacheco appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

80-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,

and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21

FILED

APR 17 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291, and we affirm.

Pacheco contends that the district court clearly erred by denying him a minor

role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). In light of the very large quantity

of methamphetamine and Pacheco’s conduct over the course of several days,

including storing methamphetamine at his home, the district court did not clearly

err. See United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2014); United

States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v.

Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006). 

AFFIRMED. 

2
<PAGE>   1



                                                        EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 33-20315 of California Jockey Club and Bay Meadows Operating Company on
Form S-8 of our report dated March 28, 1997 (which expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a proposed merger and
certain disagreements between the Companies), appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of California Jockey Club and of Bay Meadows Operating Company for
the year ended December 31, 1996.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

March 28, 1997
San Francisco, California
Solutions! ___/
QSEM

Solutions!

Il LI I

VACUUM

FURNACE

Ii.—-.
QSEM

Solutions!

• METAL OXIDE REFINING (MOR) BUILDING ROOF VENT

• BUILDING 31 (FURNACE 12) ROOF VENT

•1 ‘

I F I I’I

• BUILDING 9 (FURNACE 1) ROOF VENT
1

(‘a

0C

CD

‘.1

C,

—I
.

j

1

2z

.

2

C)

4.

m

(4
QSEM

SólutiànS!

• FURNACE TAPPING (FURNACE 12)

• CASTING (ALTERNATIVE PROCESS OPERATION)

• SKIMMING
. . .

(.n r) -n

C

z

Gb) —I

z

Gb)

-I,

Cz

m
QSEM:

Sölutións!

• IMPROVE CAPURE OF TAP EMISSIONS AT SOURCE (I.E. HOOD

MODIFICATION) AND INCREASE CAPTURE VOLUME

• CREATE ROOF ENCLOSURE (CANOPY HOOD) ABOVE FURNACE 12 TAP AREA

• VENT CANOPY HOOD TO EXISTING WET SCRUBBER SERVING THE FURNACE

_,I I .
FURNACE 12 CAPTURE SYSTEM OPTIONS

Tap

Area

// 1’ 7

Skim) Cast Arc Furnace

Rake

Hole
QSEM

Solutions! /

• IMPROVE CAPURE OF TAP EMISSIONS AT SOURCE (I.E. HOOD

MODIFICATION)

• INSTALL CAPTURE SYSTEM FOR CAST EMISSIONS USING EXISTING MELT

FABRIC FILTER

• CREATE ROOF ENCLOSURE (CANOPY HOOD) ABOVE FURNACE 1 TAP AREA

‘LI ‘..

• VENT CANOPY TO EXISTING FURNACE FABRIC FILTER
FURNACE 1 CONTROL SYSTEM OPTIONS

‘V / /

Skim/

Rake

Submerged Arc Furnace

Hood Roof

7/ / f

Cast!

Pour
QSEM

Solutions!

‘RBU

• IMPROVE CAPTURE OF EMISSIONS FROM CASTING AND METAL TRANSFER

AT SOURCE

• CREARE ROOF ENCLOSURE(I.E. CANOPY HOOD) ABOVE CASTING AREA

• VENT CANOPY HOOD TO EXISTING REFINING FABRIC FILTER

I

I IL.i’_
MOR CONTROL SYSTEM OPTIONS

Cast Transfer

I’

f,f/f f//7

Refining

Station
QEM

Solutions! -‘

• THE EMI BUILDINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED WITH PROCESS EMISSIONS

SOURCES IN A CENTER ISLE WITH A HIGH A-FRAME ROOF RUNNING LENGTH

WISE IN THE BUILDING

• PARTITIONS CAN BE INSTALLED TO FORM A CANOPY HOOD ABOVE THE

CRAIN RAILS TO CONTAIN UNCAPTURED EMISSIONS FROM TAPPING

V I1I1I
QSEM

So1uc1ons!’

• THE ROOF ENCLOSURE WILL BE EXHAUSTED TO A PARTICULATE COLLECTION

DEVICE

• UNCAPURED EMISSIONS FROM PRIMARY TAP HOOD WILL BE CONTAINED IN

THE ROOF ENCLOSURE DURING TAP OPERATIONS
Solutions!

I

‘

Eic 1’; -

• THE EMI BUILDINGS ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE

NEGATIVE PRESSURE CREATED BY THE CAPTURE SYSTEM

• EXHAUST VOLUME REQUIRE TO REMOVE HEAT GENERATED BY PROCESS

OPERATIONS IS EXCESSIVE

• FULL BUILDING EVACUATION IS NEITHER TECHNICALLY NOR ECONOMICALLY

FEASIBLE FOR CONTROL OF SECONDARY EMISSIONS
QSEM

Solutions! ,/

. EXHAUST VOLUME REQUIRED FOR SECONDARY EMISSIONS CONTROL WITH

PARTIAL ENCLOSURE IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN FULL BUILDING

ENCLOSURE

• THE EXISTING BUILDING DESIGN (I.E. ROOF VENT) ALLOWS HEAT REMOVAL

THRU NATURAL DRAFT

• CANOPY HOOD ALLOWS HEAT TO BE RELEASED THRU EXISTING VENT

SYSTEM
Solutions!

CANOPY HOODS/PARTIAL ENCLOSURES ARE USED IN PRIMARY AND

SECON DAY METAL PROCESSES TO CONTROL SECONARY EMISSIONS

• EMISSIONS CHARACTERISTICS OF MANGANESE ALLOY TAPPING ARE LESS

INTENSE THAN EMISSIONS FROM SECONDARY STEEL OPERATIONS
QSEM

Solutions!

v.I I_I’ -

• SECONDARY STEEL FURNACES DO NOT EMPLOY A PRIMARY HOOD

CAPTURE SYSTEM AND USE THE CANOPY HOOD ALONE FOR EMISSIONS

CONTROL

‘I_I L