Faucets, and DI Water

For the three sinks, the laboratory operator suggested standard enamel sinks. The more expensive epoxy sinks, however, were chosen by the engineering firm because of their high resistance to chemicals. The fact that the city had very strict regulations with regard to discharge of chemicals did not seem to alter their recommendation. The plumbing contractor presented several types of sink traps, from which the laboratory operator picked the one he felt was most easily serviced. 

Faucets chosen by the engineering firm were equipped with antisiphoning devices. The laboratory operator had specified their locations but had failed to check whether the local code required the expensive anti-siphoning type. The bench-mounted outlets installed for use with condensers and similar devices, however, were not of the anti-siphoning type, even though in this particular laboratory, the latter would be far more likely to draw water back into the system in case of pressure failure. 

The engineering firm insisted on heavily plated metal valves for DI water. They had never used plastic, which the laboratory operator had successfully employed in a previous installation. Management agreed with the engineers. The water was distributed to all sinks by standard PVC pipe, which worked very well after thorough flushing. 

Two DI units were employed in series and placed in the large closet next to the main laboratory room, where the indicator lights could be easily observed. This location was poor, since service personnel had to wheel replacement tanks through the laboratory, and mopping up was always required after exchanging tanks in the cramped quarters. Ideally, they should have been placed in the plant area with remote indicator lights mounted on the laboratory wall. At the time, such remote lights were not offered. 

---