Urban Storm Water Practice in Germany Hansjrg Brombach UFT Umwelt- und Fluid-Technik Dr. H. Brombach GmbH, Steinstr.

7, 97980 Bad Mergentheim, Germany; uft@uft-brombach.de Abstract The paper reflects the overall European history of urban storm water practice, with a specific focus on Germany. The European and German Water Policy is described in brief. By now, there are 31,000 CSO-tanks in operation in Germany. They represent a total storage of over 33 billion m3 or 400 litres per German citizen. About another 20,000 old CSOs shall be rehabilitated in the next 20 years. The investment into CSO-control in the past 25 years was about 400 (Euros; European Dollars) per capita. Seven different layouts of storm water tanks with sizes ranging from 50 to 17,600 m3 are shown in detail and described concisely. The paper closes with a short discussion of latest trends in technical equipment to reduce the impacts of CSOs. Historical Look Back Urban storm water management has a long history in Europe. The trunk sewers in Rome, Italy, called Cloaca Maxima, were a size that ships could pass through. The first systematic sewer flushing action in Rome was arranged and paid by Agrippa (64 B.C. 12 A.C.) in 32 B.C. Some parts of the Cloaca Maxima are today still in operation. In the dark Middle Ages, the technical know-how of Mediterranean and Oriental urban drainage was lost. During the industrial revolution urban drainage management got a fresh start in England in the 19th century. It was a type of a wild mixed system that just carried the sewage out of the city in the shortest distance to a receiving water. In Leamington the first real separate system was implemented in 1870. At the end of the century British design rules spread to Continental Europe. The famous English engineer William Lindley (1808 1900) planned the general layout of the sewer systems for Frankfort and many other German cities, but also for Ble, Prague and Warsaw and even for Sydney, Australia. Other great European names in sanitary engineering included William Phillips Dunbar (1863 1922), Robert Koch (1843 1910), Max von Pettenkofer (1818 1901), Karl Imhoff (1876 1965) and others, see ATV (1998). Following the British roots of sewer planning, by 1914 very nearly all middle sized to large cities in Germany got combined sewer systems. Small towns, which are most common in Germany, only got adequate collecting systems much later often systems of the separate type. In order not to surcharge the mechanical treatment plants of these early works at the end of the collecting network, combined sewer overflow (CSO) devices were found to be necessary to allow large inflows to be spilled directly into the receiving waters. At that time, it was assumed that the spilled water was sufficiently diluted. Soon, however, it was discovered that the spilled water carried a large pollutant load. This load could be significantly reduced by providing some extra storage volume at the overflows and/or to allow to retain some runoff volume and to settle heavy sediments before overflowing into the receiving waters. The first Rainwater Treatment Plant within a combined sewer in Germany was built in 1913 and reported from Engberding (1915), see Figure 1. Engberding died in World War I and his pa1

per was published posthumously. As a result of the World-War I and II, the technological lead of Germany in continental Europe in sewerage was more or less lost. However, the German Wirtschaftswunder triggered a fresh start in the 1970s.

Figure 1. Engberdings first Combined-Sewer-Overflow Tank. Off-line arrangement with clarifier overflow. The facility went into operation 1913. The new European Water Policy Until about the year 2000, each European country looked for national solutions for river pollution control separately. An exception is the region of Lake Constance. The lake is Germanys most important fresh water resource and supplies more than 10 million people. The Rhine is the stream feeding Lake Constance, see also Figure 2. In the 1970s, the lake showed an alarming increase in phosphorous concentrations, Michelbach et al (1999). The three surrounding nations/countries Germany, Switzerland and Austria founded the International Commission for the Protection of Lake Constance and set up the first mutual guideline for the design of combined sewer overflow tanks in 1973. Together with improved wastewater treatment plants and the prohibition of phosphorous in detergents it took about 10 years to stop the increase in concentration at 80 g/l. Today we are back to the level of the 1960s, with less than 20 g/l, and we hear complaints from fishermen similar to the situation at the Great Lakes in the USA and Canada of reduced fish stocks due to a decrease in Lake productivity. Since 2000 a new framework in the field of water policy of the European Community (EC), is in force: directive 2000/60/EC (2000). There are remarkable parallelisms to the USClean-Water-Act, but 28 years later! Water is declared to be not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such. Here are some quotes from the directive 2000/60/EC: Member States should aim to achieve the objective of at least good water status by defining and implementing the necessary measures within integrated programs, taking into account existing Community requirements. Where good water status already exists, it should be maintained ( 26, intro). With regard to pollution prevention and control, community water policy should be based on a combined approach (emission plus source control) using control of pollu-

tion at source through setting of emission limit values and of environmental standards ( 40 intro). Pollution through the discharge, emission or loss of priority hazardous substances must cease or be phased out ( 43 intro).

The objective of the plan is to get to similar levels of water protection all over Europe. The EC-directive is in force in 12 European states since October 2000. Action plans set fixed and rigid deadlines for all members. The programmes of measures shall be established latest in the year 2009 and all measures shall be operational latest 2012. The programmes of measures shall be reviewed, and if necessary updated, latest 2015 (quotes from article 11, 7 and 8 directive 2000/60/EC (2000)). Looking at the figures for some selected European nations, see Table 1, it is obvious, that the numbers are not homogenous at all. Exact sewer figures are hard to get, even under the new EC-administration, so some of them are my private estimates. Figures for connection grades are worse in Southern and Eastern Europe and somewhat under discretion. The data for the USA are added, but for me as a European, some question marks are remaining, too. The larger average density of the population in Europe is obvious in comparison with the USA. The density in Europe is 4 to 10 times higher then in the USA. This very different scenario should be always taken into account, when comparing figures or policies from both sides of the Atlantic! One parallelism, that is often not realized, can be seen in the British and German figures in table 1. Is that the late effect of the traditional preference of British sewer design philosophy in Germany? Table 1. Statistical sewer figures from selected states in Europe in comparison with the USA USA for comparison Great Britain Denmark Germany Belgium

Country

Total area in 1000 km2 31 357 43 544 244 41 9,363 Population in million people 10 82 5 58 58 41 281 Averaged density of population 325 230 121 106 237 371 30 in heads/km2 Connection to public sewers in 60 93 94 80 98 92 70a % of population Connection to public owned 20 91 92 77 82 88 70a WWTP in % of population Connection to combined sew70 63 47 75 70 85 15 erage in % of population a. About 30% of the U.S. population in rural areas is served by septic systems, not connected to WWTPs. The EC-water framework sets a totally new and demanding water scenario for Europe, which will affect nearly all urban drainage systems within the next 20 years - or even longer. The powerful lever will be source control, and the main sources of urban drainage are the storm outlets from separate systems, the CSOs from combined systems and all treatment works. 3

Netherlands

France

There are doubts and critiques and wonderful new ideas from all parties involved. New candidates from Eastern Europe are knocking at the doors of the EC, not quite realizing yet which requirements they would have to fulfil one good day. On the other hand, some European states are still ignoring the chance for a mutual approach to the global water problem. Thats Europe! The technical standardization in the field of urban collecting systems is just beginning. In 1995, the first European standard Drain and sewers outside buildings was released; see EN 752-1 (1995). The most important performance requirement, which brought most city councils in Europe into new problems, is the setting of a minimum basement flooding risk in publicly owned collecting systems in EN 752-2 (1996). The minimum return frequency for design storms is one in 2 to 5 years for residential areas, and one in 10 years for underground traffic structures. This corresponds to an acceptable return period for basement flooding from 10 to 50 years. These limits were adopted by 18 European nations now. However, this socalled drainage comfort is not assured, neither in the entire country of Germany, nor in the other countries. The traditional English design storm used in Germany in the past 150 years was a 15 minute storm with a return frequency of once per year. Another strict regulation is to be found in EN 752-4 (1997). At CSOs, floatables and un-aesthetic pollutants have to be retained by scum boards, screens and other measures. This is a quite new demand and it will take decades to fulfil it. German Water Legislation with Regard to Urban Drainage The legal principle is that European right will overlay the existing national right step be step. Germany is a regular member of the EC and will respect the directive 2000/60/EC (2000) in the future. The Federal Republic of Germany is politically organized in a way similar to the USA one good result of World War II. The federal government sets only the general outlines for the water policy. The actual federal water legislation in Germany is based mainly on two policies: The Abwasserverordnung AbwV (Waste Water Act), AbwV (2001) and the Abwasserabgabengesetz - AbwAG (Waste water emission fees), AbwAG (2001). Any outlet from a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), each Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) and CSO-tank in combined systems, each storm outlet from a separate system and any major industrial or private water outlet to public receiving waters in Germany traditionally needs a state-permit by water law. The conditions to get that permit are within the sovereignty of the water authorities of the 16 German Federal Countries and differ slightly, but cannot be lower than the federal minimum requirements. There is not enough space in this paper to quote all of the German states water regulations. The reality is, that for historical and political reasons, thousands of non-registered or non-permitted emergency outlets exist. The unexpected political reunification of Germany in 1990 brought a lot of confusion into the German water administration. It will take a generation of engineers to fill up the omissions of the former GDR (German Democratic Republic, East Germany). Due to the sovereignty of the Federal Countries in water affairs, a strong federal organization, like the US-EPA (US-Environmental Protection Agency), does not really exist in Germany. The design and construction of new CSOs is subsidized from the Federal Countries in various manners. The city or community has to present a proper design of any proposed new or rehabilitated sewage structure. The water authority will check the design according to existing legislation in the State and to technical standards. If everything is in due order, the state will subsidize the investment in environmental protection with subsidies from 20 to 80 %. This scheme provides opportunities for very clever communities! This subsidizing procedure is informally called the golden rain. 4

Today, the average water consumption in Germany is 130 litres per capita and day. Every household has a water meter. The average water supply fee is 2 , the sewer fee is another 2 per m3 water. This is about 0.5 or about 0.5 US$ per day per person to get water and to get rid of it. This equals the cost of one can of beer from the supermarket per day. Sewerage Systems in Germany In combined sewer systems, the domestic sanitary outflow and the runoff from roofs, streets, parking lots, and industrial sewage (after pre-treatment) are collected together in one single sewer. Separate systems use two independent pipe systems for sewage and storm water. Separate systems have been used frequently in areas where the sewer design gradient is low for topographical reasons. This is the case along all German coasts to the North Sea and to the Baltic Sea.

Figure 2. Distribution of separate and combined sewerage systems in Germany in percent of population served

For more then 150 years there has been a permanent and lively discussion going on in Germany about the advantages and disadvantages of the separate and combined collecting systems. The discussion sometimes reaches sometimes excessive and ridiculous stages. The arguments, such as efficiency, double sewer systems, problems with sewer sediments, costs, wrong connections, inflow/infiltration, and so on, are the same as discussed worldwide. Ideology dominates, and usually, once the decision for one specific system has been made, there is no comparison of cost and benefit afterwards. Since the 1980s, more confusion arose with the introduction of so-called modified collecting systems. For instance, less polluted roof runoff in residential areas shall be infiltrated directly on private ground. But even this good idea has unexpected drawbacks. Some of that water later shows up in the sanitary sewer as inflow; see Brombach, Weiss, Lucas (2002). Today, the result of the 150 years of discussion and practice can be seen in Figure 2. In the North, the separate system is dominant with 90 %. In Southern Germany, the combined system holds a top 90 %. On the average, 63 % of the German population is served by combined systems, Brombach (2002). Ten years earlier, the combined system rate was still at 67 %. The separate system has re-conquered 3 % of all Germans. The Equator of combined sewage has moved about 20 km to the south. When reading German papers on sewer systems, please be aware from which part of Germany the author comes from! From the low lands or the high lands?

Figure 3. Typical combined sewage system with CSO tank

The German Philosophy of Urban Storm Water Management Since about 1970, the use of CSO tanks has become common practice, starting from the state Baden-Wuerttemberg (Southwest Germany) where at that time the pollution of the Lake Constance had developed into a severe problem (see above). Today, in Germany around 20,000 6

CSO tanks are in operation. Together with the installation of biological treatment plants with nutrient removal all over the country, river quality has improved dramatically. Figure 3 shows a typical combined sewage system. To protect the river, the pollutant loads spilled into it from all sources must be taken into account. During dry weather, all sewage is fed to the treatment plant where pollutants are efficiently removed by mechanical and biological treatment. The effluent is continuously monitored by samplers. Averaged outflow concentrations from WWTPs in Germany range depending upon the size and type of plant from 15 to 100 mg/litre chemical oxygen demand (COD). The maximum threshold set by German water law, AbwV (2001) for COD, is 75 mg/litre for larger plants and 150 mg/litre for smaller plants. So the limiting margins are typically well met. This is a good result and treatment plants have surely been a good investment. During storms, the treatment plant inflow must be limited by flow control devices at the CSO tanks. The biological treatment processes do not allow for more than about three times of the calculated peak dry weather flow. Moreover, the final clarifiers must not be surcharged. During storms, much larger volumes of water than during dry weather are entering the combined sewer system. Pollutants are washed off from the surface into the sewers, sewer sediments are entrained, which have settled there during the previous dry weather periods. Combined sewage frequently shows surprisingly high pollutant concentrations up to several 1,000 mg/litre of COD. Sediment remobilisation processes in the sewer may be highly dynamic. A so-called first flush, a high concentration peak at the beginning of a storm event, is probable in some cases, especially in low gradient sewers and small catchments. The inrushing storm water enters a CSO storage tank. As soon as the inflow gets larger than the outflow to the treatment plant, the storage volume fills. Smaller storms will be completely captured by the tank volume; nothing will overflow. Overflow occurs only at medium to larger storm events. The volumes of the CSO tanks, the flows to the treatment plant and the volume of overflowing water at a given storm event and thus also overall are in close dependency, see Figure 4. In short, the German sewer philosophy has the following objectives: Limit the overflow volume and overflow frequency in the collecting system to an acceptable minimum. Protect the waste water treatment plant from overload during wet weather. The inflow to the treatment plant during dry weather is limited to about 2 to 3 times the peak dry weather flow by installing effective flow controls in the collecting system. Extra storage volume is to be added to or to be activated in the collecting system. Source control in the collecting system, minimization of inflow from less polluted storm water. Bypassing of wet weather flow or release of sewage between primary and secondary treatment at the WWTP is prohibited.

This is achieved by the following measures:

Fig. 4. Idealized hydrograph of the inflow to a CSO tank due to a typical storm event. The spilled combined sewage volume can be reduced by using a larger storage volume (B) or by increasing the discharge which is fed downstream (C).

Technical Standards for Storm Water Treatment After World War II, for good reasons, the rehabilitation of German sewer systems focused on combined systems in large cities first. However, the required technical standards were not set by the water authorities, but by a non-government-organization, the ATV-DVWK (German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste). Similar to the US-WEF (Water Environment Federation), any consultant, constructor, researcher, sewer department, or plant operator can apply for membership. Today, the association has about 20,000 members. For the states water authorities it is only optional to design to the ATV-DVWK-standards. However, most of them choose to do so. The standards are continuously updated by ATV-DVWK and adjusted to the newest available technologies. There is one standard for design of CSO-tanks that is obligatory throughout Germany: The required guideline ATV-A 128 (1992) was first introduced in 1977 and updated in 1992. The basic idea behind A 128 was, to give the system combined sewer plus WWTP (Waste Water Treatment Plant) the same efficiency in pollutant control as a perfect separate system plus WWTP. From this concept, a criterion for a required storage volume is derived, assuming mean COD concentrations for all flow components. 8

The basic principle of the A 128 standard is shown in Figure 5. The x-axis shows the specific peak rainwater inflow to the WWTP during wet weather. This specific inflow corresponds to the peak outflow from the last CSO tank upstream of the WWTP. The vertical axis shows the required specific extra storage volume to be activated or added to the CSO-station. The mussel-shaped curves represent the long-term overflow volume in % of the effective storm runoff. Typical solutions are to be found close to 1 litre per second and hectare of storm run off to the WWTP and a comparatively large CSO tank volume of some 20-30 m3 per hectare of impervious catchment area. This corresponds to 2 to 3 mm of effective rainfall (or 1/10 inch). Forty percent of the long-term average of effective rainfall will escape from the combined system via the overflows of the CSO-tank. The emptying time of the CSO tank should not exceed 24 hours. The A 128 cooking recipe can be applied straightforward. It cannot be cited here in detail for brevity. Moreover, A 128 also recommends the application of modern methods like numerical quantity-quality simulation. It is essential to know, that ATV-A 128 is a purely emission-oriented approach. In this procedure, the sensitivity of the river or even the degree of amenity is not accounted for. Nor are there any requirements included for the allowable frequency of spills. It is, however, recommended that the requirements should be enhanced. Some ATV-DVWK commissions are working hard to implement the European Combined Approach. The latest standard published for modern CSO tank dimensioning is ATVDVWK-M 177 (2001). German storm water treatment standards have led to well-performing solutions. In the past 25 years, Germanys river quality has improved considerably. The first few salmon have showed up again in the Rhine after 50 years of absence! However, our standards are not the cheapest, if compared with other nations. But perhaps the heavy industrialization and dense population justify the expenses. Since public money is always short, solutions are sought that are able to lower the costs for control. Latest research has shown that there is a good potential for optimisation in systems that have about one dozen or more of de-centralized CSO-stations. Optimisation can be achieved here by fine-tuning of the flow rates and storage capacities; see Haller and Weiss (2001). These investigations have also shown that some additional rainwater treatment at the WWTP will give better results than excessive extra storage. Perhaps the German decision of the 1970s to limit the wet weather inflow to the treatment plants to 2 to 3 times of the peak dry weather flow was too rigid?

Figure 5. Design diagram specific storage of CSO-tanks versus rainfall discharge rate from ATV-A 128 (1992) 9

One irony in the development of standards for storm water management in urban collecting systems was that the research, legislation and action have been primarily focussed on bad combined systems. Up to now, no single conclusive standard exists on what to do with the storm runoff from the separate systems in Germany. New measurements indicate that the runoff in storm sewers may be not as clean as assumed. This open question seems to be the next challenge in urban drainage! Tanks in operation The latest statistical census from 1998 showed, that Germany had 82,038,000 inhabitants and 10,312 WWTPs in operation. This corresponds to an average of 8,000 people served per WWTP. This relatively small number indicates the typical German polycentric settlement pattern. Most parts of the population live in these middle-sized towns. 61,376 outlets from collecting systems and WWTPs hold a permit (see Table 2; Brombach, 2002). In relation to the population this means, that for approximately every 1,250 people there is one permit. Over the past 25 years, new tanks have been continuously added to the collecting systems. In 1998, a total number of 31,044 tanks and reservoirs were in operation. The total storage was 33,143 000 m3, which corresponds to 400 litres storage capacity per person. With the German water consumption of 130 litres per day, the sewer system could theoretically hold back the sanitary run off of 3 entire days - if it will not rain! Table 2 indicates clearly that the vast majority of tanks are within the combined systems. But the task is not completed yet. Over 20,000 old CSOs still exist and need to be rehabilitated. If we continue the way we did up to now, the rehabilitation of CSOs will go on for another 25 years in other words, we have only completed half of the task. The costs for adding extra storage varies enormously from case to case. But averaging from a large number of tanks, a good figure is that about 1,000 are needed to implement 1 m3 of extra storage. Or expressed another way, up to now, for every German citizen about 400 has been invested into the rehabilitation of mostly combined systems. This sums up to a national total investment of 33 billion . Table 2. Numbers and volumes of tanks in operation in Germany, census 1998 Symbol CSO-tank CSO RT CTT WWTP Number of units All types of CSO-tanks in combined systems 20,080 Combined sewer overflows with no signifi- 20,020 cant extra storage Retention reservoirs with out overflow in 9,392 combined and separate systems Clarifier type tanks in storm outlets from 1,572 separate systems Waste water treatment plants for combined 10,312 and separate systems Total 61,376 Type of structure Storm storage capacity in m3 13,104,000 0 18,169,000 1,871,000 0 33,143,000

10

Examples for design and construction of typical CSO and storm retention structures Following a former period of very individual planning by consultants, there is now a catalogue available that illustrates proven standard designs for various tank sizes and types, ATVA 166 (1999) and ATV-DVWK-M 176 (2001). These standard designs should not be simply copied one for one by the consultants, but should inspire or guide individual designs. Altogether the standard shows 21 different CSO structures varying from 50 m3 to 17,600 m3 of storage volume and two stormwater retention basins in separate systems. For the sake of brevity, merely a few selected examples can be shown here. Whoever is interested in the full catalogue can consult ATV-DVWK-M 176 (2001). The most frequently applied design and construction standard for a CSO tank is shown in Figure 6. An oversized pipe made from prefabricated concrete is the only element in the design to provide the storage volume. The typical diameter is 1.8 to 2.4 metres. With a length of 50 meters of storage pipe plus some volume in the control shaft, the volume totals 170 m3. Such a small structure is capable of providing the CSO control for a village with 400 to 500 inhabitants. The tank may be arranged under the street, so no extra space is required. At the lower end, there is a flow control that limits outflow during wet weather to 25 litres per second. The storm overflow is situated at the upstream end and simply consists of a fixed weir, 3 meters long. The whole structure has no moving parts at all. It needs no electricity and is selfcleansing by the continuous flow.

11

Figure 6. First flush pipe-type in-line CSO-tank with upstream storm overflow, storage volume 170 m3, design UFT 2001 Figure 7 shows an open in-line circular tank. The tank empties by gravity. To improve selfcleansing performance, the tank is fed tangentially. This will result in swirl flow action of the water body. The tank features a clarifier overflow. This overflow weir is arranged at a position that the water body has to perform nearly one full rotation before being discharged. Settleable solids thus are settled in the tank. To support the rotation during emptying of the tank, two stirring propellers are installed. The wet weather outflow to the WWTP is 36 litres per second.

12

Figure 7. In-line circular CSO-tank with upstream storm overflow and inner clarifier overflow according to M 176 (2001), storage volume 500 m3 (example M 176 D.1.3.2) For bigger volumes, rectangular tanks are used frequently. They are usually split into several parallel lanes to ease cleaning and to secure good sedimentation; see Figure 8. To achieve a uniform inflow to the tank chambers, a lamella wall is arranged behind the diversion weir. Research has shown sedimentation efficiencies of up to 80 % of settleable solids. Two scum boards at the storm and clarifier overflow will retain floatables. The wet weather outflow to the WWTP is 118 litres per second. Tanks of this off-line design can also be arranged such that the tank bottom is at a lower level than the incoming sewer. In this case, emptying is done by a couple of small pumps (not shown here). This allows more compact structures and saving of footprint area. The energy costs for pumping are negligible.

13

Figure 8. Off-line rectangular CSO-tank with clarifier overflow according to M 176 (2001), storage volume 3 000 m3 (example M176 C.1 and C.2) Research has shown that not only combined sewage is considerably polluted. The runoff from heavy-duty traffic areas, e.g. motorways, requires stormwater treatment too. For this reason, all new motorways in Germany are now equipped with storm water detention facilities similar to Figure 9. The discussion about whether to use wet or dry ponds is still open, but in practice most structures are of the wet-pond type. The objective of these ponds is to minimize the hydraulic stress in receiving waters and, moreover, to retain sediments and oil and petrol in the case of a traffic accident. So far, however, there is limited experience with these ponds..

14

Figure 9. Retention pond for motor way storm runoff, upper part wet, lower part dry pond version, storage volume 3 000 m3, design UFT 2002 Recent developments in technical CSO tank equipment Typically, some 10 to 15 % of the construction costs of a CSO tank are spent for mechanical and electrical equipment necessary for proper and effective operation, such as flow controls, tank cleaning devices, backflow prevention, flow meters and water level control devices, see Weiss and Janovsky (2001). In flow control, there is a trend towards electronic solutions that allow for measuring of the actual discharge rates. Inductive flow meters are now available that are able to measure flows even when the pipe is only partially filled. Today, most new CSO tanks have some form of automatic cleaning device, either tipping flushers pushing out the sludge after the tank has been emptied, or stirring propellers that mix up the sludge during tank emptying. All these components are controlled electronically, usually by programmable logical controls (PLC). Many CSO tanks feature remote controls; the current state of the tank and, alarms, etc. are displayed on a computer at the treatment plant. 15

Figure 10. Self-regulating movable weir for water level control

Figure 11. Horizontal fine screen for removal of gross solids from overflowing water at a CSO-tank, opening width 4 mm, courtesy of ROMAG, Switzerland

Rather new products for stormwater tanks are movable weirs in various designs. Their task is to allow larger overflow discharges at smaller variations of the water level in the CSO tank in order to save construction costs by a reduced overflow weir length and by more efficient use of the tank volume. Figure 10 is an example for a self-regulating weir operated by a spring. Such devices can also be used for backflow prevention in the case of a flood in the river. Another recent development is the use of sieves or screens to remove gross solids from the spilled combined storm water, particularly at high-amenity river locations (a river promenade, for example). This solution is promoted mainly for aesthetic reasons, e.g. because of complaints about traces of toilet paper and other debris on the riverbanks. Investigations have shown that there is also a small reduction in COD loads, but it is known that sieves will reduce the pollutant load on the river only slightly since the major part of the pollutants is associated with small particles that pass through the sieve. Up to now, however, the use of such devices is not demanded by any standards. Figure 11 shows a horizontal fine bar screen at a CSO. It is cleaned by a sliding rack that is operated by a hydraulic piston. The clearance between the bars is 4 mm. Figure 12 shows a sieve/filter. A large perforated drum that is partially submerged is located inside the CSO-tank. The perforation slots have a width of 3 mm. The water enters the drum from the outside. Within a short time a filter mattress builds up. When the water level is rising due to the increasing hydraulic resistance of the filter mattress, the drum is rotated slowly and an over-water brush clears off the accumulated solids.

Figure 12. Rotating drum sieve at the overflow of a CSO-tank; sieve opening width of 3 mm, design UFT 16

Figure 13. Pre-fabricated vortex separator, factory-produced in polyethylene, lifted into position. Ready for operation next day.

For small communities prefabricated vortex separators made of polyethylene such as in Figure 13 are a cost-effective CSO-measure (see Weiss, Brombach and Bauer, 1996). The tangentially incoming flow forms a swirling flow. Similar to the teapot effect, settleable solids are pushed towards the underflow. Floatables will collect in an air cushion under the top plate. The device is self-cleansing. It may go into operation the next day after installation. Summary The paper reflects the European history of urban Storm Water practice with a focus on Germany. One of the oldest CSO-facilities of 1913 is shown. As a result of World War I and II, the know-how and momentum in sewer technologies was lost in Germany more or less until the Wirtschaftswunder triggered a fresh start in the 1970s. The present European Water Policy is described in brief. The directive 2000/60/EC has remarkable parallels to the US-Clean-Water-Act and sets rigid deadlines. By 2009, all 18 member countries involved shall have established programmes or measures, and all measures shall be operational at the latest by 2012. This new policy will affect nearly all existing urban drainage systems in Europe. The sewer situation in Europe is demonstrated with some statistical figures. The technical standardization in the field of urban collecting systems is still advancing today. For instance, the basement flooding risk has just recently been legally defined for 18 European Nations to the same level. The German Water Legislation and the philosophy behind urban storm management are reported in brevity. Furthermore, water consumption and costs of water supply and sewer fees are discussed. A map shows the current distribution of combined and separate drainage systems in the country. The combined system serves 63 % of the population, but the separate system re-conquered 3 % of the population in the last 10 years. The technical standards set by the ATV-DVWK, the German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste, are very comprehensive and detailed in regard to urban drainage and CSO-control. The principle of adding or activating extra storage in the collecting system during wet-weather is explained as well as the general design rules. Up to now there are 31,000 CSO-tanks in operation in Germany. They represent a total storage of over 33 billion m3 or 400 litres per German citizen. About another 20,000 old CSOs shall be rehabilitated within the next 20 years. The public investment into CSO-control in the past 20 years equals about 400 per capita.

17

Some selected layouts of storm water tanks of different sizes are shown in detail and described in short. The paper closes with a short discussion of latest technical trends in the instrumentation of CSOs, such as automatic self-regulating weirs, fine bar screens, drum filters, and vortex separators. References Brombach, H. (2002): Abwasserkanalisation und Regenbecken im Spiegel der Statistik. Korrespondenz Abwasser, in print AbwAG (2001): Abwasserabgabengesetz (Law setting the fees for emitting pollutants into receiving waters). Bundesgesetzblatt, BGBl. I, p. 2331 AbwV (2001): Verordnung ueber Anforderungen an das Einleiten von Abwasser in Gewaesser (Order to get the permit to discharge sewage into recipients). Bundesgesetzblatt, BGBl. I p.86 ATV (1998): Geschichte der Abwasserentsorgung (History of Sewerage), 50 Jahre ATV 1948 1998. Vereinigung fuer Abwasser, Abfall und Gewaesserschutz, Hennef, Germany ATV-A 128 (1992): Standards for the dimensioning and design of stormwater structures in combined sewers (English edition). German ATV Standards. Vereinigung fuer Abwasser, Abfall und Gewaesserschutz, Hennef, Germany ATV-A 166 (1999): Bauwerke der zentralen Regenwasserbehandlung und rueckhaltung, konstruktive Gestaltung und Ausruestung (Structures for central strom water treatment, design and technical equipment). German ATV Standards. Vereinigung fuer Abwasser, Abfall und Gewaesserschutz, Hennef, Germany (in German) ATV-DVWK-M 176 (2001): Hinweise und Beispiele zur konstruktiven Gestaltung und Ausruestung von Bauwerken der zentralen Regenwasserbehandlung und rueckhaltung (Guidelines and examples for the design and the technical equipment of central storm water treatment facilities). German ATV-DVWK Standards. Vereinigung fuer Abwasser, Abfall und Gewaesserschutz, Hennef, Germany (in German) ATV-DVWK-M 177 (2001): Bemessung und Gestaltung von Regenentlastungsanlagen in Mischwasserkanaelen. Erlaeuterungen und Beispiele. German ATV Standards. Vereinigung fuer Abwasser, Abfall und Gewaesserschutz, Hennef, Germany Brombach, H., Weiss, Lucas (2002): Temporal Variation of Infiltration in Combined Sewer Systems. Proceedings of the 9ICUD, Oregon Brombach, H. (2002): Abwasserkanalisation und Regenbecken im Spiegel der Statistik (Sewerage Systems and Stormwater Tanks as Reflected in Statistics). KA-Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser, Abfall, vol. 4, p. 444 452 (in German) EN 752-1 (1995). Drain and sewers outside buildings, part 1: Generalities and definitions EN 752-2 (1996). Drain and sewers outside buildings, part 2: Performance requirements Engberding (1915). Ueber die Wirkung von Regenauslaessen und Regenwasserbecken in staedtischen Kanalisationen. Technisches Gemeindeblatt, 17. Jhg., No. 2 Haller and Weiss (2001): Regenwasserbehandlung und Klranlagen Leistungsreserven erkennen und nutzen (Stromwater Treatment and Waste Water Treatment Plants Identifaction and Use of Efficiency Reserves). Landesanstalt fuer Umweltschutz BadenWuerttemberg, Siedlungswasserwirtschaft, Heft 16, Karlsruhe, Germany, (in German). 18

Michelbach, Weiss, Brombach (1999): Nutrient Impact from CSOs on Lake Constance. Proc. 8ICUSD, vol. 2, P. 474 481, Sydney Weiss, Brombach and Bauer (1998): Vortex Separator for Stormwater Treatment: Applications, Dimensioning, Performance. Proc. NOVATECH, vol. 1, p. 491, Lyon, France Weiss and Janovsky (2001): CSO Strategies and Practice in Germany. Proceedings Wastewater 2001 Mlad Boleslav, Czech Republic. 2000/60/EC (2000): Directive of the European Parliament and the Council of Oct. 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities from 22.12.2000, pp. 327/1 to 327/72 or http:europa.eu.int

19