1

Water Testing Report

For: BYU Idaho Facilities Management

525 South Center Street

Client Phone: (208) 496-1411

Project Name: Hinckley Building Water Testing

Project Manager: Sam Merrick

Report Date: Feb 25, 2023

Inspection Company/Organization: Sun Water Labs

Author:
 2

Table of Contents (TOC)

Introduction ............................................. 1

Narrative ..................................1

Sampling Method ................................ 2

Results: ......................................4

Conclusions: ...................................6

Recommendations: ...............................7

Appendix ............................................... 9
 1

Introduction

This water testing report, conducted by Ivan Carmona, Water Testing Report, on February 25,

2023, aims to assess the water quality at the facility located at 525 South Center Street, managed

by BYU Idaho Facilities Management. The inspection has been initiated by the client, Sam

Merrick, Project Manager, to ensure compliance with water quality standards. As the inspector, I

am committed to providing a comprehensive evaluation of the water sources within the Hinckley

Building. The following narrative outlines the detailed process undertaken during the inspection

and subsequent water sampling. It includes a thorough analysis of both initial and follow-up

results, aiming to identify any deficiencies and provide recommendations for maintaining

optimal water quality.

Narrative

Day 1: Inspection and Initial Sampling

You have been tasked with conducting water sampling at the Hinckley Building located at 525

South Center Street. The focus of the inspection is to test for lead and copper. Before beginning

the inspection, you meet with John Keller, the building supervisor, to discuss the process.

Following the meeting, you identify the following drinking water sources: kitchen sink,

sacrament sink, an upper drinking fountain, a lower drinking fountain, and a water bottle filling

station. You proceed to fill out the first five columns of your water quality sampling form.

Day 2: Collecting Initial Water Samples

 2

After labeling the one-liter sampling bottles with corresponding sampling numbers, you carefully

collect the first drop in each of the five samples. With all the samples collected, it's time to fill

out the initial chain-of-custody form. Once completed, the samples and chain-of-custody form

are sent to the lab for testing.

Day 3 (Part 1): Reviewing Initial Results

Upon receiving the initial results from the lab, you examine the data to identify water sources

above the action level for copper and/or lead. Returning to your sampling sheet, you fill in

columns 6, 7, and 8 based on the lab results (Table I).

Day 4: Collecting Follow-Up Water Samples

After labeling the 250ml sampling bottles with corresponding numbers, you collect the follow-up

samples following the established protocol. The first drop is collected in the first sample bottle,

and water runs continuously as you fill up the last two bottles. Subsequently, you fill out the

follow-up chain-of-custody form, and the samples are sent to the lab.

Day 5: Reviewing Follow-Up Results and Conclusions

Upon receiving the follow-up results, you return to your sampling sheet and fill in columns 6, 7,

and 8. You carefully review the results, considering conclusions and recommendations for the

water sources based on the findings (Table II).

Sampling Methods
 3

In the initial phase of water sampling at the Hinckley Building, a systematic approach was

employed to assess the water quality comprehensively. On Day 1, I conducted a thorough

inspection with the assistance of the building supervisor, John Keller. We identified various

drinking water sources, including the kitchen sink, sacrament sink, upper and lower drinking

fountains, and a water bottle filling station. Subsequently, I filled out the first five columns of the

water quality sampling form, capturing essential information such as sample number, sample

type, date, time, and contaminants to be tested.

Moving to Day 2, labeled one-liter sampling bottles were prepared with corresponding sample

numbers. The emphasis was placed on meticulous collection, ensuring the first drop from each of

the five samples was accurately captured. Once all samples were collected, the initial chain-of-

custody form was promptly filled out, and both the samples and the form were dispatched to the

laboratory for testing.

For the follow-up sampling on Day 3 (Part 1), the received initial results from the lab were

scrutinized to identify water sources exceeding the action levels for copper and/or lead.

Subsequently, columns 6, 7, and 8 of the sampling sheet were filled in to record these results. In

Day 3 (Part 2), follow-up testing was initiated for samples surpassing the action levels, with a

new entry on the drinking water sampling sheet capturing the details of the additional samples.

Day 4 involved labeling 250ml sampling bottles for follow-up testing. Following the established

protocol, the first drop was collected in the initial sample bottle, while the water ran continuously

for the subsequent two bottles. The follow-up chain-of-custody form was then completed, and

both the samples and the form were dispatched to the lab for the necessary analyses.
 4

Upon receiving the follow-up results on Day 5, columns 6, 7, and 8 of the sampling sheet were

updated, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of the water quality. These sampling methods

ensured a systematic and thorough assessment, adhering to established protocols and regulatory

requirements for accurate and meaningful results.

Results

Table I presents the detailed outcomes of water samples taken at various locations within the

Hinckley Building. Each row specifies the sample number, type of contaminant (either lead or

copper), sample volume, the quantity of the contaminant in milligrams, the concentration of the

contaminant in milligrams per liter, and the limit of quantification (LOQ) in micrograms.

Notably, some samples exhibit concentrations surpassing the action levels, indicating potential

concerns regarding water quality and the need for further investigation or corrective measures.

Table I Drinking water results.

Sample # Contaminant Sample Volume Quantity (mg) Concentration

(mg/L)

HB-9-23-1W Pb 1 liter 0.0001 0.0001

HB-9-23-1W Cu 1 liter 0.35 0.35

HB-9-23-2W Pb 1 liter 0.14 0.14

HB-9-23-2W Cu 1 liter 1.0 1.0

HB-9-23-3W Pb 1 liter 0.010 0.010

HB-9-23-3W Cu 1 liter 1.2 1.2

HB-9-23-4W Pb 1 liter 0.0002 0.0002

HB-9-23-4W Cu 1 liter 0.27 0.27

 5

HB-9-23-5W Pb 1 liter 0.013 0.013

HB-9-23-5W Cu 1 liter 1.1 1.1

Lead and copper are regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to control the corrosiveness of their water. If tap

water samples exceed the action level, water systems must take additional steps. For copper, the action level is 1.3 mg/L, and for

lead is 0.015 mg/L.

The Drinking Water Results table provides a focused overview of lead concentrations in samples

taken at specific locations within the Hinckley Building. Each entry includes the sample number,

type of contaminant (lead), sample volume, the quantity of lead in milligrams, lead concentration

in milligrams per liter, and the limit of quantification (LOQ) in micrograms. Samples HB-2-23-

2A, HB-2-23-2B, and HB-2-23-2C exhibit lead concentrations, indicating potential issues with

lead content in the drinking water at these locations. The action levels for lead are set at 0.015

mg/L, and further actions may be necessary to address the elevated levels identified in the

samples.

Table II: Drinking Water Results 2

Sample # Contaminant Sample Quantity Concentratio LOQ (µg)

Volume (mg) n (mg/L)

HB-2-23-2A Pb 250 ml 0.004 0.016 0.05

HB-2-23-2B Pb 250 ml 0.00125 0.005 0.05

HB-2-23-2C Pb 250 ml 0.00025 0.001 0.05

 6

Lead and copper are regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to control the corrosiveness of their water. If tap

water samples exceed the action level, water systems must take additional steps. For copper, the action level is 1.3 mg/L, and for

lead is 0.015 mg/L.

Conclusions

Upon comparing both the initial and follow-up results to the standard or recommended levels for

lead and copper in drinking water, several noteworthy findings emerge:

Lead Concentrations:

Initial Testing (Day 2): The initial results revealed elevated lead concentrations in samples HB-

2-23-2A, HB-2-23-2B, and HB-2-23-2C, surpassing the action level of 0.015 mg/L. This

prompted the need for follow-up testing.

Follow-up Testing (Day 4): Unfortunately, the follow-up testing confirmed persistently high lead

concentrations in the same samples, indicating an ongoing concern.

Copper Concentrations:

Initial Testing (Day 2): Copper concentrations in the initial testing did not exceed the action level

of 1.3 mg/L, suggesting compliance with regulatory standards.

Action Steps:
 7

Given the consistently elevated lead concentrations in samples HB-2-23-2A, HB-2-23-2B, and

HB-2-23-2C, immediate action is recommended to address potential sources of lead

contamination.

It is crucial to investigate the plumbing and water supply systems to identify and rectify any

issues contributing to elevated lead levels.

Ongoing monitoring and additional testing may be necessary to track progress and ensure the

effectiveness of corrective measures.

Regulatory Compliance:

Compliance with copper standards indicates that the water system's corrosion control measures

are effective in preventing excessive copper levels.

However, vigilant monitoring is essential to sustain compliance and promptly address any

emerging water quality issues.

In conclusion, the results highlight the urgency of addressing lead contamination in specific

water sources within the Hinckley Building. Swift corrective actions, in line with regulatory

guidelines, are imperative to safeguard the health and well-being of occupants relying on the

building's drinking water.

Recommendations

Based on the comprehensive water testing conducted at the Hinckley Building and the

subsequent analysis of results, the following recommendations are proposed:

 8

Immediate Remediation Measures:

It is crucial to promptly address and rectify the identified sources of elevated lead concentrations

in samples HB-2-23-2A, HB-2-23-2B, and HB-2-23-2C. This may involve investigating and

replacing plumbing components, assessing the water supply infrastructure, and implementing

measures to mitigate lead leaching.

Enhanced Corrosion Control Strategies:

Implementing and enhancing corrosion control strategies within the water distribution system is

essential. This may include adjusting the pH levels, applying corrosion inhibitors, and regularly

monitoring water quality to prevent further degradation of plumbing materials and reduce the

risk of lead contamination.

Ongoing Monitoring and Testing:

Establishing a continuous monitoring program is crucial to track the effectiveness of remediation

efforts and ensure sustained compliance with lead and copper standards. Regular testing should

be conducted to assess water quality, particularly at the identified problematic sources, allowing

for timely intervention if concentrations exceed regulatory limits.

Public Awareness and Communication:

Launching a public awareness campaign is recommended to inform building occupants about the

water quality issues, the actions being taken, and any precautions they should follow.

Transparent and open communication will help build trust and keep occupants informed about

the steps being taken to address the situation.

 9

Collaboration with Water Experts:

Engaging with water quality experts and collaborating with relevant authorities can provide

valuable insights and guidance in implementing effective remediation strategies. Seeking

external expertise ensures a thorough understanding of the root causes and best practices for

addressing lead contamination in the building's water supply.

Appendix

Name of Location: BYU Idaho Hinckley Building Address of Location: 525 South Center
Street Date: Feb 16, 2023

Sample Volum Substance Action Ove

ID# Location *Source type e (L) s tested Results Limit r AL

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 1 Pb (Lead) 0.0175 0.015 Yes

16-1Pb drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 1 Pb (Lead) 0.0187 0.015 Yes

16-2Pb drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 0.25 Pb (Lead) 0.0162 0.015 Yes

23-2A drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 0.25 Pb (Lead) 0.0178 0.015 Yes

23-2B drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 0.25 Pb (Lead) 0.0165 0.015 Yes

23-2C drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
 10

fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 1 Pb (Lead) 0.0175 0.015 Yes

16-1Pb drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 1 Pb (Lead) 0.0187 0.015 Yes

16-2Pb drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 0.25 Pb (Lead) 0.0162 0.015 Yes

23-2A drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 0.25 Pb (Lead) 0.0178 0.015 Yes

23-2B drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 0.25 Pb (Lead) 0.0165 0.015 Yes

23-2C drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 1 Pb (Lead) 0.0175 0.015 Yes

16-1Pb drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 1 Pb (Lead) 0.0187 0.015 Yes

16-2Pb drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 0.25 Pb (Lead) 0.0162 0.015 Yes

23-2A drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 0.25 Pb (Lead) 0.0178 0.015 Yes

23-2B drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 0.25 Pb (Lead) 0.0165 0.015 Yes

23-2C drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 1 Pb (Lead) 0.0175 0.015 Yes

16-1Pb drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain
 11

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 1 Pb (Lead) 0.0187 0.015 Yes

16-2Pb drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain

HB-2- NW lower DF (Drinking 0.25 Pb (Lead) 0.0162 0.015 Yes

23-2A drinking Fountain) mg/L mg/L
fountain
 12

* SW = Surface water, HS = Handsink, DF = Drinking Fountain, HT =Hardtapped, BW = Bottled water, OT =

Other

Sample Type: Relinquished by: Date: Received Date Turnaround Time

DW-Drinking by: 7 Days ________
Water Darin Hayes 2/23/23 Sam 2/23/23 72 Hours
SW-Surface Merrick ________
Water Darin Hayes 2/25/23 Sam 2/25/23 48 Hours
Merrick ____x____
2/27/23 24 Hours

Chlorinated Acids
Darin Hayes 2/27/23 Sam

Heterotopic Plate

Volatile Organics
Trihalomethanes
Merrick ________
Date Sampled

List
Sample Type

Carbamates
the
Sample Coliforms metals

Metals
Diquat
Time

Number to be
: tested
HB-9- kitchen sin 2/23/23 1:0 N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Pb N/ N/ Pb
23-1W 5 A A A A A A A
PM
HB-9- kitchen sin 2/23/23 1:0 N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Cu N/ N/ Pb
23-1W 5 A A A A A A A
PM
HB-9- Sacrament 2/23/23 1:3 N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Pb N/ N/ Pb
23-2W sink 0 A A A A A A A
PM
HB-9- Sacrament 2/23/23 1:3 N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Cu N/ N/ Pb
23-2W sink 0 A A A A A A A
PM
HB-9- Upper 2/23/23 2:0 N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Pb N/ N/ Pb
23-3W drinking 0 A A A A A A A
fountain PM
HB-9- Upper 2/23/23 2:0 N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Cu N/ N/ Pb
23-3W drinking 0 A A A A A A A
fountain PM
HB-9- Lower 2/23/23 2:3 N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Pb N/ N/ Pb
23-4W drinking 0 A A A A A A A
fountain PM
HB-9- Lower 2/23/23 2:3 N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Cu N/ N/ Pb
23-4W drinking 0 A A A A A A A
fountain PM
HB-9- Bottle 2/23/23 3:0 N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Pb N/ N/ Pb
23-5W filling 0 A A A A A A A
station PM
HB-9- Bottle 2/23/23 3:0 N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Cu N/ N/ Pb
23-5W filling 0 A A A A A A A
station PM
 13

GW-Ground
Water
TW-Treated
Water