Cited by 54Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsFecal contamination and water qualityPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

Illicit discharge detection and elimination: Low cost options for source identification and trackdown in stormwater systems

Irvine, Kim, Rossi, Mary C., Vermette, Stephen, Bakert, Jessica, Kleinfelder, Kerry·2011·Urban Water Journal

Abstract

Permit regulations in the U.S. for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) require the MS4 to develop a program that detects and eliminates illicit discharges (e.g., improper wastewater connections) into the storm sewer system. Municipalities are interested in cost-effective methods to meet the permit requirements of this federal mandate. Our demonstration project with municipalities in Western New York State evaluated low cost options for illicit discharge trackdown. First, a visual reconnaissance was used to document flowing stormwater outfalls in dry weather. Subsequently, a sampling program was conducted, in combination with decision-making tools, to identify possible sources of illicit discharges. Colorimetric techniques were tested for a number of chemical parameters and the Coliscan Easygel® system was tested for E. coli analysis. Results from these various cost-effective analytical techniques were compared with analysis by standard methods. The E. coli test, in particular, had good precision and was useful in trackdown.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1573062x.2011.630095

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Alabama Water Watch, 1999, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
  2. Brisman A., 2001, Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 26, 505
  3. Clarkson H.E., 2003, The Journal of Surface Water Quality Professionals, July/August, 13
  4. Deutsch W.G., 2000, Report for the Heifer Project International
  5. Gugino H., Proceedings of the Fourth International Synposium on Southeast Asian Water Environment, Asian Institute of Technology, 85
  6. Irvine K.N., 2002, Middle States Geographer, 35, 42
  7. Irvine K.N., Proceedings, 25th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, Asian Association on Remote Sensing
  8. Irvine K.N., 2006, Clearwaters, 36, 51
  9. Irvine K.N., 2006, In Intelligent Modeling of Urban Water Systems, Monograph 14, Computational Hydraulics International, Guelph, Ch. 2
  10. Irvine K.N., 2009, Report to U.S. EPA, Region 2, Project Number CP–97280200–0
  11. Krueger A.M., 2004, Middle States Geographer, 37, 1
  12. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1999, 6 NYCRR Chapter X, Article 2: Part 703
  13. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2005, NYSDEC Division of Water Report
  14. Pitt R., 2004, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, A Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical Assessments
  15. Pitt R., 1993, A User's Guide for the Assessment of Non-Stormwater Dischargers Into Separate Storm Drainage Systems. EPA/600-R–92–238
  16. Prince George's County, Maryland, 1999, An Integrated Design Approach. Department of Environmental Resources Report
  17. Rossi M.C., 2009, In Intelligent Modeling of Urban Water Systems, Monograph 17
  18. Stark H., 2003, The Journal for Surface Water Quality Professionals. September/October, 12
  19. Tucker S., 2006, Report to the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies for the U.S. EPA, ch. 1
  20. University of Vermont, 2003, Watershed Alliance, Watershed Educator's Handbook
  21. U.S. EPA, 1983, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA/600/4–79–020
  22. U.S. EPA, 1991, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Update, EPA/600/4–91–010
  23. U.S. EPA, 1992, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Update, EPA/600/R–92–129
  24. U.S. EPA, 1993, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Update, EPA/600/R-93–100
  25. U.S. EPA, 1999, Report to Congress on the Phase II Storm Water Regulations. U.S. EPA Report, EPA 833-R-99–001
  26. U.S. EPA, 2000, Low Impact Development (LID) A Literature Review. EPA Report, EPA-841-B-00–005
  27. U.S. EPA, 2001, Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. U.S. EPA Report, EPA 841-R-00–002
  28. U.S. EPA, 2009, EPA's BEACH Report: 2008 Swimming Season. U.S. EPA Report, EPA 823-F-09–005
  29. Virginia Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program, 2003, Report for Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
  30. Wendel Duchscherer, 2010, Feasibility of a Regional Stormwater Utility District in Erie and Niagara Counties
  31. Wills M., 1996, Middle States Geographer, 29, 105

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Irvine, K., Rossi, M. C., Vermette, S., Bakert, J., & Kleinfelder, K.
Affiliations
Buffalo State University (US)
Corresponding author
Irvine, Kim
Venue
Urban Water Journal
Published
2011-11-15
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
379-395
ISSN
  • 1573-062X (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-9006
OpenAlex
W2030914678
Cited by
54
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Urban Water Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fecal contamination and water quality
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Keywords
municipal separate storm sewer systems, stormwater outfalls, colorimetry, Escherichia coli detection, source identification, Western New York

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review