A company has to dispose of 1.30kg/ day of a certain chemical, which may not be eleased directly into a nearby stream. On their property is a 8,500m3 pond fed y a 500m3/ day clean stream and which empties in the nearby stream. The plan is to ump the chemical into the pond while the pond is being flushed by the passing stream. laboratory analysis has revealed that under that scenario, the chemical would decay at rate of 0.10/ day. Evaporation is deemed negligible. The permitted value for release to the nearby stream is 0.50mg/L. You are an environmental engineer hired to help e company comply with the regulation pertaining to the permitted release value. (a) Show, based on calculations, that the company's plan is not meeting the regulation. (b) To comply with the law, you suggest to the company that it should provide a longer retention time. This can be accomplished in two ways, either by augmenting the volume of the existing pond or by passing the effluent into a second pond before release into the nearby stream. Either way, some excavation and earth removal must be done and paid for. Because the company is cost conscious, it wants to minimize the amount of excavation. Which option do you recommend to the company? And, what volume (in m3 ) will it have to excavate