C h a p t e r 1
I n t r o d u c t i o n
This book is written for a wide variety of readers: the
expert and the beginner in a design office; the project
leader of a design team; the city engineer or chief
engineer of a water or sewerage authority (or their
subordinates) who may review plans and specifica-
tions; and manufacturers' representatives who should
know how their equipment is best applied to a pump-
ing station. Recommendations for the utilization of
the book by each group of readers are given in Sec-
tion 1-7.
The aim of the volume is to show how to apply the
fundamentals of the various disciplines and subjects
into a well-integrated pumping station—reliable, easy
to operate and maintain, and free from serious design
mistakes.
To facilitate the selection of good design engin-
eers, the publisher hereby gives permission to
photocopy Chapter 1 only of this book for distribu-
tion to municipalities or utilities and their represen-
tatives.
1-1. Authors and Contributors
Each author or contributor is an expert with many
years of experience in the subject discussed. Further-
more, all chapters were reviewed and critiqued by
four to eight other equally qualified experts, includ-
ROBERT L. SANKS
CONTRIBUTORS
Roger J. Cronin
Marc T. Pritchard
Brian G. Stone
Roy L. Wilson
ing the editors. (Editors' names are not listed unless
an editor is a principal author.)
The reviewers are listed as contributors (except, of
course, for the editors), but not all contributors
are reviewers. A contributor is one who has helped
in any way, from writing a short segment to giving
advice.
Engineers do not always agree, and the viewpoints
expressed do not necessarily reflect those of each
individual contributor or even of the author. Where
an unresolvable conflict occurs, both viewpoints are
given. No effort has been spared to make this book
the most authoritative possible. In spite of these ef-
forts, there are more differences than can be encom-
passed and some errors may have occurred, so read
thoughtfully and with care.
1-2. Responsibilities of Project Engineers
The design of a pumping station depends on several
specialties, which are listed in Table 1-1 more or less
in chronological order, together with the approxi-
mate range of percentages of engineering or design
costs. Not all specialties for all pumping stations are
shown. For example, river engineering (not shown)
might be a significant part of design costs for a raw
water pumping station taking water from a river
 tions are written so that inefficient and unreliable
Table 1-1. Specialties and Disciplines in the Design
equipment with poor maintainability is eliminated.
of Pumping Stations
Approximate percentage
Specialty of design costs 1-3. Units

Planning and water 5-15 Metric (or SI) units are used worldwide and now take
resources management precedence in American technical literature. Although
Surveying 0.5-1
Foundation and soils engineering 2-10
SI units will probably be used exclusively in the future,
Hydraulic engineering 5-15 many American engineers still think in English units,
Analysis for transients 0-2 plans for structures in the United States are still drawn
Structural engineering 20-35 in feet and inches, and pipes and machinery conform to
Civil and mechanical engineering 15-40 inches (although many manufacturers now give di-
Electrical engineering 10-30 mensions in both units). Much of today's literature is
Instrumentation engineering 2-5 written with SI units followed by English units in par-
Architecture 0.5-2 entheses, a cumbersome practice but one that makes
Specifications and 5-10 the work more universally appealing. That system is
contract administration followed here, and formulas and many of the worked
Construction engineering 15-50
examples are also shown in both units. Abbreviations
Start-up, operations, and 5-20
checkout are defined in Chapter 2.
Engineering notation is typically used in tables
and calculations. Exponents in multiples of three are
useful for prefixing units with micro, milli, and kilo.
Large and small numbers in calculations, for ex-
ample, are written as 3.0 x 107 and 1.62 x 10~3,
meandering in a sandy plain, and a raw wastewater whereas in tables the same numbers are designated
lift station at a treatment plant may be so closely in computer language as 3.0 E+7 and 1.62 E—3.
tied to the treatment plant that it would be impos-
sible to assign engineering costs to the lift station
alone. 1 -4. Standards and Codes
Although each discipline is important to the suc-
cess of the design, several specialties do not require a The use of standards in the specifications is extremely
detailed knowledge of hydraulics or pumps. To direct important. The quality of the product is largely
the design of a plant, it is not necessary to be a dependent on a wide variety of standard codes and
structural, soils, mechanical, or electrical engineer. standard specifications—most of them the result of
But the project leader should be familiar with these years of experience by both users and manufacturers.
disciplines and must be able to coordinate the work Because most standards and codes, updated from
of the specialists. time to time, represent a consensus, they are an indis-
Plant hydraulics requires great care because the pensable aid for quality control.
hydraulic computations establish the ultimate ca- Readers, especially designers, should become fa-
pacity and, thus, the total capital costs. But the selec- miliar with the available standards (particularly those
tion and specifying of reliable mechanical equipment identified here) to reference exactly which standards
is just as important, and an understanding of control (or portions of standards) apply to the project and to
methods, available monitoring equipment, and per- consider the advice contained in them intelligently.
haps even display and data storage is fundamental for Never specify a standard unless you have read all of it
the design of a good and efficient plant. and understand its implications. In today's litigious
It is the responsibility of the project leader to society, a specifier may be held legally responsible for
provide or coordinate all of the services in Table a conflict or contradiction in a specification. Specifi-
1-1. It is bad practice to allow equipment suppliers cations must be accurate and clear (see "Specification
to design custom plants in whole or in part. Many are Language" in Section 28-1).
interested in selling their equipment, and they cannot Standards are referenced in contract documents
always be trusted to use the best. The project leader and in this book by a simple code name such as
should ensure (1) that decisions are made by those "ANSI B16.1" or "ASTM B43." Such designations
who are completely objective and (2) that specifica- are entirely sufficient to identify the document.
1-5. Manufacturers' Recommendations Beginners

Be cautious when advised to consult manufacturers Beginners should read the entire book and resist the
or to follow manufacturers' recommendations. Many temptation to study a single subject or a single
manufacturers get business based on one consider- chapter.
ation—low price—so they tend to stretch their cri-
teria for use to the limit. Thus, their products perform
as they say only if Project Leaders
• their instructions or recommendations are followed
Project leaders must have a working knowledge of all
exactly;
phases of the project and must be able to communi-
• their product is used in a service perfect for its use.
cate with other members of the team to plan the
These constraints are rarely met in field installa- project effectively. They must coordinate all phases,
tions, so designers must consider the merit of the distinguish the good from the shoddy, and shoulder
manufacturer's recommendations and often establish the responsibility for producing a well-designed facil-
a more conservative design. ity. Hence, they too should be well acquainted with
the entire book.
1-6. Safety
Experts
Many fatal accidents occur each year in the water and
waste water industries in the United States. Designers
Experts are themselves the best judges of what to
should be aware of the hazards and circumvent them
study. It would be wise to scan the entire volume to
insofar as possible both by good design and by ad-
note the depth and thoroughness of coverage. There
equate warnings and other instructions in the oper-
is a wealth of new and valuable information added in
ation and maintenance (O&M) manual. Every
many chapters.
designer should read Life Safety Code [1] and two of
the NIOSH reports [2,3] as well as Sections 23-1 and
23-2 in this volume, in which some of the hazards in
Public Utility Managers
both water and wastewater pumping are explored.
Public utility managers and others who deal with or
1-7. How to Utilize This Book have control over the pumping station design would
be wise to read the following:
Many of the facets of pumping station design are so
• Chapter 25 from the beginning through Section
interrelated that coherent discussions of different
25-6 and, especially, Tables 25-3, 25-4, and 25-5
topics sometimes involve the same subject in several
(for wastewater pumping) and Tables 25-6 and
places and from different viewpoints. Hence, none
25-7 (for water pumping).
of the chapters should be studied in isolation. This is
• The first few pages of Chapters 17, 18, or 19 for
an integrated work and should be read as a whole. For
wastewater, water, and sludge pumping, respect-
example, station head-capacity (H-Q) curves are cus-
ively.
tomarily shown as single lines for simplicity. A reader
• Chapter 15, Sections 15-1 and 15-11 and, espe-
who misses Figures 10-27, 10-30, and 18-17 and the
cially, Table 15-3 and the results of Example 29-1
discussion of friction losses in Section 3-2 might not
if variable-speed operation is considered.
realize that H-Q curves should be considered as
• Before beginning to review plans, read Chapter 27,
broad bands. Note that there is extensive cross-refer-
because much aggravation can be avoided and
encing. The relatively complete index can be used to
considerable funds may be saved by following the
find any given subject.
advice it contains.

Recommended Minimum Reading

Manufacturers
As a minimum, the user of this book should read
Chapters 12, 24, and 27. Those who are concerned When advising consultants, it is not enough for
with selecting consultants should read Section 1-8. manufacturers and their representatives to know
their own products. They should also be able to help
with the engineering involved in the incorporation of
their products into the station. At a minimum, the
chapters dealing with their products should be read
together with Chapters 12, 17, 18, and 19. Scanning
the book will reveal other sections of importance.
1-8. How to Select Consulting
Engineering Firms
The public at large tends to believe that registration
of engineers ensures competency, but that is not true.
Frankly, there just are not enough good engineers for
every project. Many pumping stations (and treatment
works) are flawed, and a distressing number are quite
badly designed. So it is important to retain truly
competent designers who will (1) produce a better
facility than would mediocre or inexperienced engin-
eers, and (2) probably save the client significant life-
cycle costs. Unfortunately, some public bodies are
obsessed with the low-bid approach for choosing
engineers in the mistaken thought that money is
thereby saved—a penny-wise, pound-foolish notion
that fosters hasty, ill-considered design; prevents ad-
equate investigation of viable alternatives; and actu-
ally favors the inexperienced or incompetent who are
willing to work for low wages. The nineteenth-cen-
tury words of John Ruskin, "There is hardly anything
in the world that some man cannot make a little worse
and sell a little cheaper and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey," also apply to the
services of any professional, including artists, engin-
eers, lawyers, or surgeons. In fact, as engineering fees
are typically only about one-eighth of the construc-
tion cost, a major saving in fees is insignificant com-
pared with a minor saving in construction. The
spread of construction bid prices is sometimes greater
than the entire engineering fee, so the place to save
money is in construction. A thoughtful, resourceful
designer might save more than the entire consulting
fee in life-cycle cost.
Any organization that contemplates selecting an
engineering firm on the basis of low bid should be
aware of the inevitable results. As any private enter-
prise must make a profit to stay in business, the
following disadvantages will occur when a firm is
forced to compete with others for the lowest bid.
• The work will be bid exactly as written by the
agency. If the scope fails to include all the tasks
necessary for completing the project, those tasks
will have to be completed by change orders that
may negate the supposed low-bid savings.
• Options for long-term cost-saving and/or innova-
tive, low-cost alternatives will not be considered.
Instead, "cookbook" designs and copies of previ-
ous designs will be used. Although such designs
may "work" (water may be pumped), the design
is unlikely to be optimal or the most cost-effective
for the new project.
• The quality of plans and specifications will decline.
Fewer hours will be allocated to coordination
meetings, design reviews, and interdisciplinary co-
ordination. Consequently, there will be more con-
struction change orders (always expensive). The
effort made in preparing detailed specifications
will be the minimum possible. "Canned" specifica-
tions or specifications from a previous job will be
used with a minimum of editing for current project
needs. Construction inspection will often be under
the direction of young and inexperienced engineers.
Low bid is never an adequate basis for selection
unless the product can be defined and specified com-
pletely and accurately. Artistry and thoughtfulness in
engineering or in any product of thought cannot be so
specified.
Sometimes, there is an attempt to "save" money
by dispensing with engineering services during con-
struction, by in-house inspection, or by retaining the
services of a separate consultant to provide engineer-
ing services during construction. A design is not
really completed until after the project has entered
service and the adjustments required during the com-
missioning period have been made. When any of the
above arrangements are used, the inevitable result is
that the designer is shielded from the day-to-day
bidding and construction events that inevitably
shape and refine the completed project. Loss of direct
contact with the project by the designer as it pro-
gresses toward completion will inevitably mean the
design will be compromised. Given this loss of con-
tact, it is unreasonable for the owner to expect the
completed project to be completely satisfactory, just
as it was unreasonable for the owner to expect that
the design, when it was completed for bidding pur-
poses, is perfect in every way. The best construction
can be obtained only by employing experienced in-
spectors under the control of (or at least answerable
to) the design firm. Some requests for substitutions or
change orders are inevitable, and it is better that the
designer be in charge of these to protect the quality of
the project and to avoid unnecessary added costs.
Design services for a reasonably large project typic-
ally cost about 6 to 10% of project costs, and com-
plete services (including design, inspection, and start-
up) cost about 12 to 18%. Trying to save on this
minor fraction of cost and major fraction of import-
ance cannot be justified.
Good design begins with the selection of good de-
signers by following the aphorism "By their fruits, ye
shall know them." First, discard applications from
firms that have not done related, recent work of
roughly the same magnitude and kind. This screening
step reduces the applications by, perhaps, half. Second,
conduct telephone interviews with the operation,
maintenance, and supervisory staffs at representative
facilities designed by the remaining applicants. Ask
searching questions related to (1) the quality of design,
(2) whether the specifications resulted in high-quality
equipment, (3) ease of operation and maintenance,
(4) whether the work space is pleasant and convenient,
(5) whether the designers were both competent and
cooperative during the project and after completion,
and (6) the projects' success in meeting the purpose of
the facility. These telephone interviews may well elim-
inate all but a very few applicants. Third, select an
ad hoc committee of two or three members of the
group that is responsible for choosing the consulting
engineering firm and, accompanied by an engineering
adviser who is both expert in the field and disinterested
in the choice, visit a representative facility of each
remaining firm. Allow a day for each visit. Tour the
facility with the designer (or a representative) who will,
of course, praise its virtues and suppress or minimize its
faults. Dismiss the designer and tour it again with an
operator and a maintenance worker to hear their ob-
jective views. Finally, tour it again with neither oper-
ators nor consultants so that the engineering adviser
can frankly explain the good and bad features and, to a
large degree, assess the competency of the designers.
Such a visit is most revealing, and a wide disparity in
the competence and thoughtfulness of designers for all
but the simplest, smallest facilities will become appar-
ent. Such visits may be expensive, but if the cost of the
proposed facility is expected to exceed half a million
dollars, the returns far outweigh the cost.
The above process may narrow the field to two or
three applicants. Sometimes, none of the applicants
appear qualified and it may be necessary to advertise
for consultants again. Do not overlook the advantages
of a consortium of a local firm and another firm with
great experience. However, the experienced firm must
have technical control over the project. Most engineers
can do good work with only a minimum of guidance at
the right times to the benefit of all concerned. In such
situations, the above selection process, including visit-
ations, should be redirected to the experienced firm.
By this time, the selection is usually apparent and
the interview of firms on the "short list" is nearly
a formality. Beware of "bait and switch" tactics
wherein experienced engineers represent their firm at
the interview and, thereafter, assign junior engineers
to do the work. Make it plain that such practices will
not be tolerated, and that those experienced engineers
whose facilities were visited will themselves supervise
the design. Follow up to be sure they do. Negotiate a
contract for engineering services that will allow the
designers enough leeway to do a proper job and to
investigate promising alternatives. Cost plus a fixed
fee with an upper limit protects both client and
engineer. If no agreement can be reached, negotiate
with the best of the other firms that made the short
list or else advertise for consultants again.
The method outlined above is unsurpassed for
getting the best possible facilities compatible with
the lowest possible overall cost. Some states have
recognized the need to discourage bidding for the
selection of engineers by enacting statutes against
the practice. The State of Nevada [4] requires selec-
tion based on qualifications. The state law of New
Mexico encourages the qualification-based selection
of engineers and also requires the services of a pro-
fessional technical adviser to assist in defining the
scope of work, evaluating proposals, and negotiating
the contract. The price is determined by formal nego-
tiations after selecting the consultant [5]. See Sanks
[6], Shaw [7], and Whitley [8] for further information.
Once a selection has been made and a contract
negotiated, be prepared to work closely with the con-
sultant. A working team managed by an individual
authorized to make budget and technical decisions
for the owner should meet frequently with the con-
sultant to monitor and advise as the project develops.
With such a management, timely decisions affecting
the project can be made and the finished product will
more accurately reflect the owner's needs.
When the project is completed, put into service,
and all adjustments made, the engineer should pro-
vide a set of "as-built" plans to the owner. These
should be impressed with the responsible engineer's
seal and signed. Some owners prefer the plans to be
on diskettes, but such "electronic plans" should omit
the seal and signature, because the engineer has no
control over subsequent alterations to the diskettes.
1-9. Value Engineering
"Value engineering" is a formalized procedure for in-
dependently reviewing the proposed facilities before
the design is completed. The Corps of Engineers
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are
among those who either encourage or require these
formalized studies of first costs together with
operation, maintenance, and replacement costs, all of
which are sometimes referred to as "life-cycle costs." If
a value engineering study is required, the owner should
pay for it as an extra.
A team of experienced engineering specialists in
the fields appropriate to the study is assembled under
the leadership of a "certified value engineer." The
design engineer must assemble a presentation pack-
age for the reviewers. The assembled team normally
spends about a week reviewing the designer's work.
A team of experts who can give undivided attention
to the broad aspects of a problem can sometimes save
many times the cost of the study. Case histories
abound where savings of large sums (up to 20% or
even more) of the total project cost resulted from a
peer review, but read these reports with caution.
Many case histories give inflated values to the poten-
tial savings, and sometimes the recommendations are
not consistent with overall project objectives.
To be most effective, such a study should be made
as soon as the surveys are complete, the data are gath-
ered, and a preliminary design concept is established,
but before any detailed design has commenced—
probably when the engineering is approximately 10
to 15% complete. The owner and the engineer review
the report and may reject (with reasons) those recom-
mendations that they consider inappropriate in their
response to the funding agency.
Consulting engineers have often been forced to sub-
mit bids for their services and to reduce their costs to a
minimum, with the result that adequate investigation
of alternatives has been curtailed. If, however, the
advice in Section 1-8 has been followed, and if the
project has been subjected to careful in-house evalu-
ation of alternatives, the redesign costs and delays
brought about by the value engineering procedure
will be minimized. If the work of the project engineer
was well done, no significant changes will be needed.
The value engineering study is essentially a one-
time review, whereas by contrast, the designer is con-
cerned with costs throughout the project. The object-
ive is that blend of economy in the cost of
construction, operation, and maintenance together
with intangibles (such as environmental effects and
the ease of operation and maintenance) that can be
termed the "most cost-effective" solution. A design-
er's attention is directed to increasingly smaller ele-
ments as the design proceeds. An important tool in
the process is the "comparative cost estimates" of
alternatives. Such estimates do not require detailed
quantity takeoffs and can made before the design
details are developed. Only those elements of the
project that may vary because of the materials or
equipment under evaluation are considered.
Every project of any size needs to be subjected to
appropriate comparative cost estimates, regardless of
whether a value engineering study is to be made.
1-10. Ensuring Quality and Economy
Pressure on engineers to achieve the lowest costs in
the design of utility system installations has been
increasing. Based on past experience, Jones [9] points
out that high-quality design and construction fea-
tures result in the lowest overall costs. The public
has little patience for utility system failures—particu-
larly for failures in water and waste water systems.
Consequently, features that incorporate a high
degree of reliability are required. These features
include:
• Heavy-duty construction of all equipment, not just
the main pumps and drivers. See Sections 16-3,
28-5, and Appendix C for quality assurance for
pumping equipment.
• Adequate ventilation to ensure a suitable environ-
ment for both equipment and workers. Today's
electronic equipment requires far better environ-
ments than the mechanical relays and other
devices of the past. Air conditioning to remove
particulates and corrosive gases such as hydrogen
sulfide and sometimes to cool the enclosure is
often necessary.
• Support systems (such as on-site generators, sump
pumps, service water, compressed air, and hoisting
equipment) should provide the necessary service
without fail.
• Features that make operation and maintenance
simple and convenient include self-cleaning wet
wells, simple control systems, and ample access
for maintenance and operation.
Cost is the proper measure of success. The true
cost of any facility should not only include capital,
operation, energy, and maintenance costs but also the
cost of failure to serve the public reliably. When all
costs are properly assessed, the initial costs of design
and construction are often a small part of the tax-
payer's burden. Quality in design and construction is
the best overall investment. Not only does it save
money, but it makes life easier for management,
operation, and maintenance personnel.
Joint Ventures
Joint ventures between small, local consulting firms
and highly experienced firms result in several benefits,
including closer contact and cooperation with the
client (at lower cost because of access and lower
overhead), closer contact during construction, and
the education of the local firm at no cost. The last
benefit may make the local firm competent enough to
design similar facilities with no future help. Note that
the experienced firm must have control. A good start
in the joint venture is a day-long retreat attended by
the involved personnel from both of the firms and
from the client to resolve major issues and to estab-
lish a close and cooperative relationship.
Another possibility is to invite an experienced
construction manager to join the joint venture. The
right person may save considerable expense by offer-
ing good advice on ease of construction and practi-
cality.
Design-to-Cost
Design-to-cost is a proprietary, computerized man-
agement system used by one consulting firm for ac-
curate cost estimating and scheduling at any stage of
design completion. Because the potential for control-
ling costs is greatest in the early stages of design, the
system is extremely useful. It enables (1) designers to
focus immediately on the most cost-effective alterna-
tives; (2) clients to see the consequences of incorpor-
ating special features; and (3) designers, construction
contractors, and owners to share information that
keeps costs under control. The system is made pos-
sible with a database of 20,000 items in which two
subsystems (continuously upgraded costs and sched-
uling) are electronically linked. In early planning and
design phases, estimators produce conceptual costs
that are, on the average, accurate within an error
range of +11 to —3%. As the design proceeds, new
data are entered as soon as available, and the accur-
acy increases until the final estimate (based on quan-
tities of materials, equipment, person-hours, location,
and labor and market conditions) has an average
error of only +7 to - 1 % . The key element is cooper-
ation between all persons working on the project. The
program can be used anywhere on a notebook com-
puter [10, H].
The concept can be used and a program devel-
oped by any firm that keeps good records of numer-
ous and recent construction costs. Obviously, the
capability of providing accurate costs from beginning
to end helps to establish and maintain good relation-
ships between the owner and designers and (during
construction) between the contractor, owner, and
design firm—particularly when change orders are
processed.
1-11. Avoiding Litigation
In our litigious society, nothing can ensure complete
protection from lawsuits, but the precepts that follow
will reduce their incidence and severity. Should a
dispute arise, every effort should be expended by all
parties to avoid litigation, because litigation rarely
solves disputes satisfactorily.
Clear, Fair Contracts
Describe clearly both the rights and responsibilities of
each appropriate party. Avoid ambiguity and one-
sided requirements. Recognize potential problems,
and provide for fair solutions openly.
More for Design, Less for Litigation
The intelligent application of money for design can
promote better coordination between client and de-
signer and between the various design disciplines.
Proper funding also allows adequate investigation of
viable alternatives and enough time for truly careful
preparation and checking of plans and specifications
with a probable decrease in the overall capital cost,
with reduced chances for errors and expensive change
orders and with improved client satisfaction.
Partnering
Partnering is a voluntary process that promotes non-
adversarial relationships among the parties involved
in a construction project. Partnering benefits all pro-
ject participants (owner, contractor, and engineer) by
reducing their exposure to disputes and litigation and
by increasing their productivity. The teamwork dur-
ing construction improves quality and the chance of
timely completion and results in fewer lingering dis-
putes. See "Partnering. A concept for success" [12].
Partnering between owner, engineer, and contrac-
tor has been tried, often with success but sometimes
with mixed or poor results. Sincere efforts by each to
be fair with the others are the keystone to success.
Resolve Potential Claims as Change Orders
Claims that lead to litigation are simply disputes that
could not be resolved as change orders. The apparent
ease of such a solution is deceptive if any of the
following occurs:
• Ambiguous contract language. [14], and pumps, drivers, and pump systems are cov-
• Imprecise contract words or phrases such as ered in Pump Handbook [15]. Storm water pumping (a
"prompt," "reasonable," "workmanlike," and "to subject omitted in this text) is discussed in the Manual
the satisfaction of the engineer," which will surely for Highway Storm Water Pumping Stations, Volumes
lead to different interpretations by different people. I and II [16] and Design of Wastewater and Storm-
• Lack of communication and mutual respect. water Pumping Stations [17]. A compendium of
standard design plans for storm water pumping is
contained in the Pump Station Design Manual [18].
Alternative Dispute Resolution The Hydraulic Institute, beginning in 1994, has issued
an impressive number of useful standards under the
The construction industry has developed a variety of auspices of the American National Standards Insti-
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures to tute. These standards are reviewed and improved on a
avoid the time, bitterness, and cost of resolving dis- 5-year cycle and the Institute is adding standards
putes by litigation. Those that should be considered regularly. All specifiers and designers should have
include: these standards accessible, either in hard copy or
electronically via a standards subscription service.
• Mediation, a formal method wherein both parties The Hydraulic Institute also sells the standards in
negotiate their differences before a neutral third searchable CD ROM format. The number of times
party. Mediation may be mandated by the contract books or codes and standards are referenced, the title,
or adopted at the first irreconcilable dispute. and the context in which the references are given are
• Mini-trials wherein a third party acts as a judge clues to their importance. Consulting firms must have
and both sides present their positions and answer an extensive library of codes and specifications. Be-
questions from the other side and the judge. cause these are voluminous and frequently revised,
• Dispute review board named by the parties at the subscribing to a microfiche service or on-line refer-
start of the project. The board thus becomes famil- ence service through the Internet is definitely worth-
iar with the project throughout its life. while for a large office.
Many other steps can be taken to prevent litiga-
tion, but the above are some of the most important.
A more extensive discussion has been prepared by 1-13. Operator Training
Wilson [13].
Good operation is just as important as good design.
A good crew can make a poor facility seem good,
1-12. Library whereas a poor crew will make a good facility seem
poor. Consequently, it is in the long-term interest of
Every designer should acquire an extensive library public utilities and agencies to spend the money ne-
because no book, however complete, can contain ad- cessary to send their operators and maintenance staff
equate discussions of all topics. Read with caution and to seminars and other training sessions so that they
suspicion, however, because there are many mistakes can learn how to operate and maintain the pumping
in the literature, and some may lead to blunders or equipment properly. Training should be conducted
poor design. Just because a book is listed here or (1) by qualified representatives of the equipment
because it carries a prestigious label or a distinguished manufacturers, (2) at various seminars conducted by
authorship, do not assume it to be universally authori- manufacturers, (3) during in-house training sessions,
tative or correct. Thoughtful reading of diverse opin- and (4) especially by the engineer responsible for the
ions and consideration of the author's credentials, original design. This last individual is the only source
coupled with your own experience and expertise, can of information on the operational concepts embodied
often distinguish between fact and fallacy, good and in that design.
poor. The references in these chapters are publications Purchasing expensive pumping installations with
often found to be useful, but by no means are they sensitive equipment and expecting untrained staff to
intended to include all of the useful literature. Fur- maintain them is simply shortsighted. Indeed, over
thermore, inclusion is not an endorsement of authority the long term, cutting back on training sessions will
or assurance of freedom from error. cost the utility more because: (1) more labor hours
Readers must determine their own library needs. will be needed by poorly trained personnel to operate
Pump sump design, pump testing, and vertical tur- and maintain the station than would be required by
bine and propeller pumps are discussed by Dicmas properly trained staff; (2) equipment will have to be
repaired more frequently than it would if it were
properly cared for to begin with; (3) the station can
be kept operating more efficiently and expensive,
critical, and relatively fragile items such as mechan-
ical seals and bearings for pumps are more likely to
be properly installed and maintained by skilled main-
tenance workers, thereby reducing replacement parts
costs; (4) skilled maintenance staff can repair equip-
ment (for example, they can balance pump shafts and
impellers) to a degree that minimizes problems such
as vibration (which always reduces the longevity of
rotating equipment); (5) properly trained staff will
probably have a better attitude toward keeping the
station neat and in good operating condition; and
(6) good training will result in fewer accidents and
missed work days—an important consideration be-
cause water and wastewater industries are among the
most hazardous ones in the United States.
Large submersible pumps provide a good example
of the cost-effectiveness of good training. These large
pumps are out of favor with many public utilities, but
a staff well trained in removing and repairing them
can keep them operating with only ordinary effort
and little down time provided the equipment is of high
quality and the facilities are tailored for easy pump
removal and replacement (see Sections 25-5 and 27-5).
A utility with a goal of low capital expenditure would
(in 1998) save an estimated construction cost of be-
tween $1 and $6 million for a 1.3m3/s (30 Mgal/d)
pumping station if three submersible pumps were
used instead of three dry-pit pumps (see Figures 29-
2 and 29-3). Obviously, the cost of training would be
repaid many, many times.
Utilities should also realize that when the main-
tenance staff have become skilled in repairing com-
plex equipment, their market value is much higher
than that of "average" workers. If it does not offer a
competitive salary appropriate to the level of skill, it
will lose the benefits of its training program by be-
coming a training center for transferees to those pri-
vate industries and other public agencies that do
appreciate the worth of skillful mechanics.
1-14. References
1. NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy, MA.
2. Papillon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, Omaha,
Nebraska, HETA 83-440-1537, NIOSH, U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA (1984).
3. Criteria for a Recommended Standard. Working in Con-
fined Spaces, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 80-106,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
(December 1979).
4. Nevada Revised Statutes, NRS 625, and Nevada Ad-
ministrative Code Board Regulations, NAC 625 (1994).
5. Legislature of the State of New Mexico, "An act relating
to public purchases, amending, repealing and enacting
certain sections of the procurement code." Section 13-1-
55 NMSA (1978).
6. Sanks, R. L., "How to choose a consulting engineer,"
Public Works 120 (10): 125-126 (September 1989).
7. Shaw, R. L., "Competing on price, again," Civil Engin-
eering 59 (10): 6 (October 1989).
8. Whitley, F., "Consultant selection—controlling the pro-
cess," Public Works 120 (4): 47-49 (April 1989).
9. Jones, G. M. "Municipal pumping stations, the case for
quality and reliability," Pumps and Systems, pp. 32, 34,
36-37. (September 1993).
10. Pritchard, M. T., D. S. Parker, and A. Malik, "Design-
to-cost with BACPAC." In-house publication, Brown
and Caldwell, Pleasant Hill, CA.
11. Pritchard, M. T., D. S. Parker, and A. Malik, "Keeping
costs from creeping," Water Environment & Technology
4 (12): 38-39 (December 1992).
12. AGC, "Partnering. A concept for success," Publ. No.
1205, Associated General Contractors of America, 1957
E Street N.W., Washington, DC 20006.
13. Wilson, R. L., President, Wilson Management Associ-
ates, Inc., Glen Head, NY. Personal communication
(August 1995).
14. Dicmas, J. L., Vertical Turbine, Mixed Flow & Propeller
Pumps, McGraw-Hill, New York (1987).
15. Karassik, I. J., J. P. Messina, Paul Cooper, and C. C.
Heald, Pump Handbook, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New
York (2001).
16. Lever, W. F., Manual for Highway Storm Water Pump-
ing Stations, Volumes I and II, Report No. FHWA-IP-
82-17, Federal Highway Administration, National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA
(October 1982).
17. Design of Wastewater and Stormwater Pumping Sta-
tions, Manual of Practice FD-4, Water Environment
Federation, Alexandria, VA (1993).
18. Pump Station Design Manual, Los Angeles County
Flood Control District, Los Angeles, CA (n.d.).