Comment by Waterluvian

9 hours ago

If I wanted to fall under that reporting limit, can I just dilute my wastewater a bit more?

The classic pre-EPA slogan comes to mind: "the solution to pollution is dilution".

  • The dosage makes the poison - but if it sticks around in the body dilution may slightly alleviate effects but at the cost of more widespread buildup. This is out of my field so I'm not certain if that's a concern here.

  • In some cases it still is, but we need to emphasize the exceptions, which can be rather serious.

    For example, we can hardly "dilute" CFCs or CO2 any more than we did, by putting them into a whopping 5.15×10^18 kg of the entire atmosphere of the Earth. Yet both still cause bad things, because there's no (sufficient) process to break them down or move them to a safe state.

    • Is that so? The amount of atmosphere stays the same, but we're constantly adding more CO2. So wouldn't this continually reduce the dilution?

That level of arsenic is so low that diluting it with groundwater might cause the arsenic number to go up, depending on where this is located.

>> If I wanted to fall under that reporting limit, can I just dilute my wastewater a bit more?

It said the permit is for up to a certain amount of water per day. If you're at the volume limit there's no way to dilute by just adding more water.

  • Unless you run it along a ditch so much of the water, and bad stuff, soaks into the soil before "discharge" at the property line.

Yeah but the volume of water you can release is still limited so does still reduce pollutants if you are running up against that limit.

That is how car manufacturers worked around the old tail pipe emission laws. They added air pumps plumbed to the exhaust manifold(s) to increase the exhaust mass diluting the stream enough to pass emissions tests. Problem solved!

  • This is completely false.

    The ECU turns on the secondary air system and enriches the fuel mixture so the exhaust temperature goes up, heating the catalytic converter rapidly. Catalytic converters must be hot to work, so getting them hot quickly is important.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_air_injection

    EDIT: OP drove an older truck. In earlier days, the extra air injection into the exhaust was to provide some air for the secondary exhaust gasses to fully burn. It had to be done early in the exhaust where the exhaust gases are hot.

  • >That is how car manufacturers worked around the old tail pipe emission laws. They added air pumps plumbed to the exhaust manifold(s) to increase the exhaust mass diluting the stream enough to pass emissions tests. Problem solved!

    I'm sure that people of a certain bent will eat your comment up but that's just not true.

    Air pumps were for catalyst efficiency. The old ones needed extra oxygen molecules floating around for the big stuff (hydrocarbons) to oxidize with until the catalyst was up to operating temp and working at peak-ish efficiency.

    Emissions have been measured by mass rather than concentration since 1972. So like yeah it "could've been done" but standards before that were light enough that they could just screw with other things that add $0 to the BOM to clean it up enough to pass.

    • > Air pumps were for catalyst efficiency. The old ones needed extra oxygen molecules floating around for the big stuff (hydrocarbons) to oxidize with until the catalyst was up to operating temp and working at peak-ish efficiency.

      My experience comes from driving and working on a 1988 GMC 6000 truck with an anemic 350 small block with a Muncie SM465 behind it. There was no catalytic converter, only a muffler. It featured not one, but two air pumps, each feeding a set of pipes that led to metal tubes which entered the exhaust manifold opposite each exhaust port. Another odd thing about that truck was it had a choke lever, something I thought was long gone by 1988, and was a pain to start in the winter.

      Perhaps other vehicles had a cat but this truck certainly did not.

      9 replies →

  • Is that what a "smog pump" is (was)? LOL. I had heard the term but never knew what it was.

    Along the same lines then as other emissions equipment that reduced fuel economy but achieved the ppm criteria in the exhaust. Yes, let's address pollution by burning more fuel.

    • Yes, and it has absolutely nothing to do with increasing air volume. The idea is to lower hydrocarbon emissions by burning them off in the exhaust manifold.

Presumably. But they are also limited on the volume of wastewater they are allowed to discharge, so it probably wouldn't be an ideal "solution".