Sample records for eurochemic
-
Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
2010-08-20
... produced and exported by MCC EuroChem (EuroChem). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2008, through June... for EuroChem. Therefore, the final results are different from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for EuroChem is listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of the...
-
Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
2011-06-17
... Federation (Russia). The review covers one producer/ exporter of the subject merchandise, MCC EuroChem (Euro... duty order on solid urea from Russia with respect to EuroChem on July 28, 2010. On August 31, 2010, in... To determine whether EuroChem's sales of solid urea from Russia were made in the United States at...
-
Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
2013-11-12
... (Russia). For the final results, we continue to find that MCC EuroChem has not sold subject merchandise at... of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from Russia.\\1\\ We invited interested parties to comment... conducted a verification of the sales information reported by MCC EuroChem in Russia.\\2\\ \\2\\ See Memorandum...
-
DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)
Shank, E.M.
1959-06-23
Information obtained from HAPO during visit by M.K. Twichell, UCNC, and E.M. Shank, ORNL, is given. Included are the tentative procedures for obtaining and transmitting information to the Eurochemic company. Discussions are given on pulsed columns, corrosion, puse generators, centrifuges, valves, in-line instrumentation, evaporators, resin column design, off-gas processing, solvent recovery, liquid-waste handling, process control, equipment decontamination, criticality, radiation protection, diluent, and solvent stability, backmixing in a pulsed column, and use of 40% TBP in the purex flowsheet.
-
ONDRAF/NIRAS and high-level radioactive waste management in Belgium
DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)
Decamps, F.
1993-12-31
The National Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials, ONDRAF/NIRAS, is a public body with legal personality in charge of managing all radioactive waste on Belgian territory, regardless of its origin and source. It is also entrusted with tasks related to the management of enriched fissile materials, plutonium containing materials and used or unused nuclear fuel, and with certain aspects of the dismantling of closed down nuclear facilities. High-level radioactive waste management comprises essentially and for the time being the storage of high-level liquid waste produced by the former EUROCHEMIC reprocessing plant and of high-level and very high-level heatmore » producing waste resulting from the reprocessing in France of Belgian spent fuel, as well as research and development (R and D) with regard to geological disposal in clay of this waste type.« less
-
DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)
Not Available
The purpose of this supporting analysis is to provide a foundation for developing a model, an international or multinational institution capable of accomodating the back end of the fuel cycle, while meeting US nonproliferation goals. The analysis is based on a review of selected, defunct and extant institutions which, although not necessarily concerned with nonproliferation, have faced a trade-off between acceptability and effectiveness in meeting their objectives. Discussion of the various institutions is divided into three categories: international organizations, multinational consortia, and cartels or producer associations. Examples of international organizations include the International Seabed Authority, Intelsat, the United Nations andmore » the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The International Seabed Authority is discussed. Multinational consortia are organizations that have been developed primarily to meet common commercial objectives. Membership includes at least three member nations. Examples include the Scandinavian Airline System (SAS), URENCO, Unilever, Royal Dutch Shell, Eurochemic, Eurodif, Euratom, European Coal and Steel Community, and Serena. Cartels or producer associations are multinational agreements that restrict market forces; viz, production, market share, customers or prices. Examples include the Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries (CIPEC), the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and the Fifth International Tin Agreement (ITA), as well as agreements governing diamonds and uranium, bauxite and coffee. OPEC, CIPEC and ITA are discussed.« less
-
Weeks, Holley L; Hristov, Alexander N
2017-02-01
Milk urea N (MUN) is used by dairy nutritionists and producers to monitor dietary protein intake and is indicative of N utilization in lactating dairy cows. Two experiments were conducted to explore discrepancies in MUN results provided by 3 milk processing laboratories using different methods. An additional experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1, 3-diol (bronopol) on MUN analysis. In experiment 1, 10 replicates of bulk tank milk samples, collected from the Pennsylvania State University's Dairy Center over 5 consecutive days, were sent to 3 milk processing laboratories in Pennsylvania. Average MUN differed between laboratory A (14.9 ± 0.40 mg/dL; analyzed on MilkoScan 4000; Foss, Hillerød, Denmark), laboratory B (6.5 ± 0.17 mg/dL; MilkoScan FT + 6000), and laboratory C (7.4 ± 0.36 mg/dL; MilkoScan 6000). In experiment 2, milk samples were spiked with urea at 0 (7.3 to 15.0 mg/dL, depending on the laboratory analyzing the samples), 17.2, 34.2, and 51.5 mg/dL of milk. Two 35-mL samples from each urea level were sent to the 3 laboratories used in experiment 1. Average analyzed MUN was greater than predicted (calculated for each laboratory based on the control; 0 mg of added urea): for laboratory A (23.2 vs. 21.0 mg/dL), laboratory B (18.0 vs. 13.3 mg/dL), and laboratory C (20.6 vs. 15.2 mg/dL). In experiment 3, replicated milk samples were preserved with 0 to 1.35 mg of bronopol/mL of milk and submitted to one milk processing laboratory that analyzed MUN using 2 different methods. Milk samples with increasing amounts of bronopol ranged in MUN concentration from 7.7 to 11.9 mg/dL and from 9.0 to 9.3 mg/dL when analyzed on MilkoScan 4000 or CL 10 (EuroChem, Moscow, Russia), respectively. In conclusion, measured MUN concentrations varied due to analytical procedure used by milk processing laboratories and were affected by the amount of bronopol used to preserve milk sample, when milk was analyzed using a mid-infrared analyzer. Thus, it is important to maintain consistency in milk sample preservation and analysis to ensure precision of MUN results. Copyright © 2017 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.