Due process clause

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept of Health, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990) See also, Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22(1990) (recognizing a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ) Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480,494 (1980) (forced admission to mental hospital and behavior modification treatment implicate liberty interests). 

The court declared that the commerce clause of the Constitution (allowing Congress to regulate interstate commerce) did apply to Puerto Rico as a U.S. territory. It also disposed of the due process and equal protection arguments, citing the rational and practical need for lawmakers to make assumptions based on a person s prior conviction for a crime. 

The cooperative had also argued that even if the necessity defense is not allowed, the Controlled Substances Act exceeds the power of Congress under the constitution s Commerce Clause, and that enforcing this law against medical marijuana patients would deprive them of the right to due process and infringe on liberties guaranteed by the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. However, because these constitutional issues were not raised earlier in the appeals process, the Court declined to consider them. 

Finally, the Cooperative contends that we should construe the Controlled Substances Act to include a medical necessity defense in order to avoid what it considers to be difficult constitutional questions. In particular, the Cooperative asserts that, shorn of a medical necessity defense, the statute exceeds Congress Commerce Clause powers, violates the substantive due process rights of patients, and offends the fundamental liberties of the people under the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. As the Cooperative acknowledges, however, the canon of constitutional avoidance has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity. Because we have no doubt that the Controlled Substances Act cannot bear a medical necessity defense to distributions of marijuana, we do not find guidance in this avoidance principle. Nor do we consider the underlying constitutional issues today. Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims, we decline to do so in the first instance. 

The requirements pertain to your customer verifying product purchased by you either at your supplier or on your premises. Verification of purchased product is normally carried out by the supplier before or after receipt as part of the purchasing process but may also be carried out by the customer. However, due to the standard locating most of the inspection and test requirements in clause 4.10, the receipt inspection requirements are displaced. 

In this new process the H2S/SO2 reaction is carried out in liquid sulfur at pressures in excess of five atmospheres. Typical Claus catalysts are still employed but temperatures are lower (below the dewpoint of sulfur) and thus the redox reaction occurs in the liquid sulfur phase at the surface of the catalyst. Vapor losses due to sulfur mist entrainment are reduced and interstage condensers in the tradition Claus train are not required thus avoiding wasteful heat transfer problems. The authors claim that overall sulfur recoveries in excess of 99% are possible without the use of tail gas clean up units. 

It is instructive to compare the example of the seemingly more feasible Claus process with the less tractable direct HCN synthesis. The major difference lies in the much poorer selectivity of both catalyst and adsorbents at the higher temperatures (400 °C rather than 250 °C) in the latter case, which would seem to indicate that adsorptive reactors function better at lower temperatures. The ability to use a process gas stream for elutive regeneration and to overcome problems due to distortive reactant adsorbent on the catalyst using the partial de-integration described in Section 7.5.1 are further points favoring the use of adsorptive reactors in the first instance. 

The H2S concentration in the tail gas of a conventional Claus plant is still some 5%. This H2S is normally incinerated to S02 and released to the atmosphere. Due to stricter environmental regulations a large number of new technologies based on Claus tail gas treatment have been developed to minimise the S02 exhaust from sulphur recovery units. The Superclaus process and the Shell Claus Off-Gas Treating (SCOT) process are treated below. For descriptions of other tail-gas processes, the reader is referred to [2],... 

When a partial oxidation synthesis gas is treated for H2S and CO2 removal, the resultant acid gas from the treating system is usually quite lean in H2S concentration due to the relatively large amount of CO2. For example, see the acid gas composition in Table IIA where H2S is only 16.07% vol of the Sulfinol acid gas (dry basis). This H2S concentration is near the minimum level which would permit processing the acid-gas in a Claus unit. Moreover, a special splitflow type Claus unit or other unusual procedures would be required to handle this low concentration. 

As discussed above, the Delaney clause applies to substances proposed for use as food additives, but does not apply to individual constituents of a food additive. Examples of constituents would include residual monomers or catalysts. The constituents policy, subjected to judicial review in Scott v. FDA, 728 F. 2d 322 (6th cir. 1984), states that FDA may consider the potential risks of constituent exposure under the general safety standards set forth in FFDCA. The notification process places the responsibility upon the notifier for addressing the carcinogenic risk of constituent exposure from a proposed use of a food additive. FDA recommends that notifiers include in their food contact notification a safety narrative that addresses the safety of each carcinogenic constituent at any exposure (in addition to the recommendations listed in Table 7.1). This narrative should include an estimate of the potential human cancer risk from the constituent due to the proposed use of the food contact material (FDA, 2002). 

In a Claus plant plant H2S is converted into sulfur however, the conversion is not complete (94-98%). About 1% H2S and 0.5% COS remain in the off-gas due to the thermodynamics of the Claus equilibrium reaction. Van Nisselrooy and Lagas [162] developed a catalytic process, called Superclaus, which is based on bulk sulfur removal in a conventional Claus section, followed by selective catalytic oxidation of the remaining H2S to elemental sulfur. Iron oxides and chromium oxides supported... 

In the Claus process Sulphur Recovery Units, metallic bellow expansion joints in the tail gas line to Incinerator, seldom fail by developing crack on the bellow element due to various mechanical and metallurgical reasons. 

It may also be able to justify less fault tolerance than required by Table 6, when the dangerous failure modes of the SIF devices and associated process interfaces are well understood. Clause 11.4.4 states that if the selection of a device is based on prior use, then, under specific conditions, the fault tolerance for sensors, final control elements, and non-PE logic solvers can be reduced by 1. The reduction of fault tolerance is acceptable, since prior use establishes the field application data, which includes the random hardware failures for the device itself and the random failures due to the process and field device interfaces. 

Figure 2.45 shows the capacity increases that can be achieved in Claus plants through oxygen enrichment. Given a constant sulphur load, the total gas flow decreases as oxygen enrichment increases, due to reduced levels of Nj in the process air. The resulting drop in pressure can be compensated by increasing the amount of feed gas, which in turn increases the Claus plant s capacity. 

Due to confidentiality clause the company name and the type of processed fish are not referred. The company operates in Portugal and its core business is salting fish. 

The SulFerox process converts hydrogen sulfide into elemental sulfur, which is separated from the slurry by filtration. Sulfur quality can be influenced by contaminants in the gas stream. However, filtration, followed by melting, can usually provide a yellow sulfur product with less than 100 ppmw of iron, 500 ppmw of ash, and 1,000 ppmw of carbon. A comparison between Claus-produced sulfur and the filtercake and molten sulfur produced in the SulFerox process is shown in Table 9-26 (Van Kleeck and Morisse-Amold, 1990). As indicated earlier, direct melting without concentration of the sulfur slurry is usually not a viable process option due to contamination of the molten sulfur and high chemical losses caused by thermal degradation. 

The first sulfur dioxide-based process was the Townsend process, developed in 1958. This process never advanced beyond the pilot-plant stage due to mechanical and corrosion problems. It was followed by the IFF Clauspol 1500 and the Wiewiorowski processes in 1969. The IFF process is closely related to the Townsend process, but is restricted in application to the treatment of Claus tail gas. The low cost and simplicity of the IFF process has attracted some commercial interest however, the Wiewiorowski process was never commercialized. 

---