Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0023,6 <br /> <br />thiosulfate chemical cost estimates on large waters) then reclamation costs would <br />be underestimated_ <br /> <br />Mai'tJml,lmJ::.hLQrine I Sosl.ium Thiosl,IlfillLCW <br />Both Della Gravel Pit #1 and 22 314 Road Pond were pumped-down 10 a <br />minimum pool of 12 AF. Because oflhlS. It was assumed that all ponds> 12 AF <br />would be pumped down to a minimum pool of 12 AF Therefole.12 AF was <br />assumed to be the mBKimum volume 01 waler that would ue chemically trealed <br />at a maximum cost of $1776 (12AF)( $148 Sl!l~dard chem'Ic<ir-coStl AF). ThiS <br />assumplloo may lead 10 an inflated or unrerrat8d estimate"of chemical cost <br />depending on actual water volume treated" , <br /> <br />SmilllE2ll~ti.SQdium Thiosulfate ~-l ., <br />Because ,t was assumed the maximum Volume to be treated with chemicals. <br />would be 12 AF (see above) the cost o(lchemc 5 for ponds < 12 AF was <br />estimated by multiplying the estimated wi1U"me atfull pool by the standard <br />chemical cost {$ 148 standard chemical ~t I AFNhis-lssumptlon will result In <br />an overestimate of chemical costs forsma I ponds that artpumped or drained <br />below full pool capacity_ " '" <br /> <br /> <br />7 <br />