VI. Regulated Utility Compliance With Applicable Water Quality Regulation

General Order 103 and numerous Commission decisions cited in the order instituting this proceeding require that regulated water utilities comply with DHS regulations, decisions and orders. We ordered all Class A and B regulated utilities to answer 12 specific questions in the form of a compliance report in this proceeding. In response, respondents' compliance reports listed the date, location, test results and then-applicable standards for each contaminant detected based upon records retained for the past 25 years, as well as any follow-up efforts and citation history. Overall, respondents reported numerous incidences of tests exceeding maximum contaminant levels. However, they also reported that in each case of testing where a contaminant exceeded then-existing standards, the DHS-mandated follow-up procedures were conducted, resulting in few citations from DHS for noncompliance. When citations have occurred, respondents reported that the offenses have been timely corrected under then-existing DHS requirements and orders, such as frequent monitoring and removal of a well from the distribution system. DHS confirmed that respondents' past and present compliance with applicable water quality regulation and DHS orders for correction and improvement is satisfactory, with the exception, that a court matter is pending involving DHS and Alco Water Company, discussed below.

As instructed, RRB verified respondents' compliance reports using random sampling techniques and comparison with DHS records. RRB agreed with the DHS' comments that respondents' compliance with past and present state and federal water quality regulation is satisfactory, with the one exception, even though tests exceeding maximum contaminant levels have occurred.

A. Staff Analysis of Respondents' Compliance Reports

Staff reviewed each compliance report and commented on its content. Staff summarized the water utility responses to the 12 questions in the order instituting this proceeding posed by the Commission. Table 1 of the staff report filed December 4, 1998 lists each Class A and Class B utility that filed a compliance report.¹² Table 2-M1 in staff's supplemental report filed May 17, 1999 (modified to include all supplemental water utility responses to staff follow-up data requests) indicates that each respondent adequately answered each of the 12 questions.

1. What Contaminants Did You Test for and When?

DHS is empowered to oversee compliance with both federal and state water quality regulation. Title 22 of the CCR contains DHS' requirements for water quality testing and requires that each utility retain the results of chemical analysis for ten years and bacteriological analysis for five years. Class B utilities are allowed to test for fewer contaminants than Class A utilities. Generally contaminants fall into the following nine categories of contaminants:

TABLE 3

Major Categories

DHS prescribes the various contaminants within the above categories for which a regulated water utility must test and specifies the maximum amount of each contaminant that may lawfully be present in drinking water. In reviewing water utility compliance reports, staff compared respondents' test results with the applicable primary drinking water MCLs for each contaminant regulated under the above categories,¹³ secondary MCLs,¹⁴ unregulated chemicals requiring monitoring, and DHS' suggested ALs.

MCLs are monitored for compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and must be met by each public drinking water system to which they apply. Primary MCLs are established for organic and inorganic chemicals and radioactive contaminants. Lead and copper have specific regulations under the Lead and Copper Rule and are considered primary MCLs. Secondary MCLs are established for taste, color, odor, and appearance. In addition, unregulated chemicals may be required to be monitored depending on vulnerability of the drinking water system to specific contaminants, as determined by DHS. ALs are DHS advisory levels for unregulated chemicals which are nonenforceable. Except in the case of lead or copper,¹⁵ if an AL is exceeded, DHS recommends, but does not require, notification to the public. An exception is the case of lead and copper which, as noted above, is mandatory, not advisory. All other contaminants with ALs are unregulated.

Numerous state agencies are authorized to monitor testing, generally under statutes regulating specific contaminants. Table 4 in staff's first report summarizes the various state statutes which govern water quality monitoring, in addition to those of DHS, and the establishment dates.

TABLE 4

AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHING DETAILS OF TESTING

In its capacity to oversee compliance with both federal and state drinking water quality regulation, DHS has authority to approve unique proposals to meet these requirements that reduce utility testing costs. For instance, three utilities participated in a program in which tests on representative wells in an aquifer were substituted for testing of each well in that aquifer. Upon evaluation, DHS may waive a utility's monitoring requirement for certain contaminants.

Each utility that responded indicated that it conducts tests in accordance with EPA and DHS requirements, including annual oversight requirements by DHS. Some utilities indicated that they adhere to a self-imposed policy of testing for contaminants that were not yet required by EPA or DHS. Among the reasons cited were the EPA's Contaminant Candidate List, anticipation of possible future regulation, and research on water sources.

2. How Did You Know What to Test for?

Most utilities stated that they rely on the regulations listed in Table 4. DHS and EPA also specify testing requirements for each utility through additional regulations, rules, directives, and permits. Utilities are able to keep abreast of new and revised regulations through information available from the American Water Works Association and the Federal Register. Some southern California utilities also rely on the Metropolitan Water District for this information. From 1979 to 1998 the Sacramento Area Water Works Association sponsored a committee charged with keeping members abreast of new and updated regulations. DHS also notifies each regulated utility of new or revised DHS regulations. Finally, some utilities test for certain contaminants for reasons other than required regulation.

3. What were the Standards (MCLs) for Each Contaminant?

Water quality standards are set separately by EPA and DHS. Historically, California has set many MCLs before the federal EPA (e.g., the federal EPA did not issue a primary MCL for MTBE before the state did so). Usually the federal government is the first to set minimal standards. DHS may legally and often does adopt more stringent requirements than the EPA.

Any drinking water sample that tests below the MCL for a certain contaminant is deemed in compliance with state law. Tests that exceed these standards require follow-up testing and often public notice to the customers. For inorganic chemicals, standards are not exceeded unless an average of an initial sample above the MCL and a follow-up sample is above the MCL. For inorganic chemicals, an initial sample which is above the MCL, must be confirmed by a follow-up sample and test. If the average of the tests is above the MCL, the source is placed on a six-month monitoring program. If the average of the initial, confirmation, and six-month monitoring is above the MCL, the source is considered to be out of compliance. For radionuclides, standards are not exceeded unless an average of four consecutive quarterly samples is above the MCL.

Staff attached to its first report the current MCL for each contaminant. All Class A and B utilities provided in their compliance reports detailed tables with applicable MCLs and ALs with corresponding test results for the period 1973-1998, except in several cases where these records were not available. However, DHS only requires that regulated utilities retain the results of chemical analysis for ten years and bacteriological analysis for five years.

4. What Entity/Company Performs Sample Taking?

Sampling can be divided into three areas: sampling at the water source (source sampling), sampling at various locations in the distribution system (distribution system sampling), and sampling at the customer's tap pursuant to the Lead and Copper Rule. A particular utility may use a different agent to conduct each kind of sampling. Sample takers include company personnel, consultants under contract, laboratory personnel, local agencies, DHS, and EPA. Water wholesalers are required to perform testing on their product and if the purchasing utility does not provide additional treatment to the purchased water, then they are not required to test it. Every utility that specifically addressed Lead and Copper sampling indicated that customers draw their own samples. In these cases, the utility provides specific customers with sampling vessels and sampling instructions developed by DHS for this purpose. In some instances, sampling by DHS and local authorities may be performed.

Title 22, Chapter 15, Section 64415(b) addresses requirements for personnel who conduct water quality testing. The water quality sample-taking must be conducted by a water treatment operator certified by DHS, by personnel trained by DHS to collect samples, or by certified laboratory personnel. Every regulated utility that responded indicated that sample collectors were certified or had received some kind of training on sampling procedures. In some instances, the responses were not specific as to whether the training met Title 22's requirements.

5. What Entity/Company Performs Your Required Testing?

Laboratories certified by the State of California to perform water testing undergo a mandated certification process and receive continued oversight by DHS, pursuant to CCR Title 22, Chapter 15, Section 64415(a). These laboratories must use methods of analysis approved by EPA or DHS.

Two respondents maintain their own state-certified laboratories for testing. These companies conduct the bulk of the necessary testing in-house, but still contract with other certified labs for some types of testing. The rest of the respondents use certified independent labs to conduct testing under contract. Many respondents have programs under which personnel use portable equipment to conduct additional testing for water quality or to confirm the adequacy of the treatment process at various locations.

6. How Did You Test for Each of These Contaminants?

EPA sets methods of analysis for each contaminant or group of contaminants that are published in the Federal Code of Regulations. Testing methods have continuously improved throughout the years, resulting in increased levels of detection of potentially harmful contaminants.

Testing and monitoring are based upon the three types of procedures, source monitoring, distribution system monitoring and "information collection rule" monitoring. The purpose of source monitoring is to ensure that safe water enters the distribution system. Water samples taken from the source of drinking water are tested for general minerals, volatile organic compounds, inorganic chemicals, bacteriological, synthetic organic chemicals, herbicides, pesticides and radioactivity. If drinking water has been treated or blended, the testing takes place after these processes but before it enters the distribution system. DHS approves locations where samples are drawn for testing. The kind of testing required of each utility may vary depending on the water source. For instance, surface water is subject to unique testing regulations under the Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Distribution system monitoring is intended to ensure that any change to water caused by the distribution system does not create drinking water which violates state or federal standards. Samples taken in a distribution system are tested for bacteriological contaminants, general physical characteristics, lead and copper levels, and residual disinfectant by-product.

The specific rules applied to the testing of water in the distribution system are as follows: "Total Coliform Rule," "Total Trihalomethanes Rule" and "Lead and Copper Rule." Under the Total Coliform Rule, DHS approves locations, frequency of sampling, follow-up protocols, laboratories, and sampler qualifications. Monitoring samples for compliance with the Total Triholomethane Rule are also collected at locations approved by DHS. The monitoring for lead and copper occurs at the taps of the most "vulnerable" customer. Some initial lead and copper monitoring was conducted by EPA. However, the vast majority of monitoring was reported to DHS.

Every respondent indicated that testing was conducted in compliance with then- and currently existing regulations. Nearly all respondents indicated a presumption that testing had been conducted properly because it was performed by state-accredited labs. Some respondents supplemented the required testing with volunteer testing.

7. What Reports Did You (or a Contractor) Create and to Whom Were They Sent?

The written reports discussed by respondents may be divided into four categories: Overall Summary Reports, Water Source Reports, Distribution System Reports, and Treatment Plant Reports. Tables 5 and 6 attached to the first staff report summarize each report discussed by each respondent. Staff determined that the failure of a respondent to discuss a particular report does not necessarily mean that it does not file the report or comply with the requirements by another method. Many respondents indicated that the laboratories that conduct testing electronically transfer the results to DHS, which constitutes compliance with reporting requirements even if the respondent did not indicate that a particular written report is filed. Other utilities explained that they were exempt from filing certain reports, failed to list all of their reports, or that a misunderstanding may exist as to what to call a particular report.

The Overall Summary Reports which many respondents indicate they file based upon their location and reporting requirements include: Annual Reports to DHS, Consumer Confidence Reports to Customers, Area Agency Water Quality Monitoring for the Main San Gabriel Basin, Public Health Goal Reports (every three years), and monthly Water Quality Monitoring Data Reports. Every Class A water utility files a Consumer Confidence Report to Customers listing each contaminant, its MCL, and the highest and lowest levels present during the year.

Respondents are required to file either monthly or quarterly reports under the various rules listed above that are applicable based upon their individual circumstances and location. Occasionally, DHS requires special reports from water utilities depending on the specific water quality issues of an individual system.

8. List Each Failure by Type of Test, Date of Test, District and Location. What Tests, if any, Indicated Failure to Meet Standards in Effect at the Time of the Tests? List Each Failure by Type of Test, Date of Test, District and Location, Standard Applicable at the Time, Results of the Tests, and Corrective Action Taken.

Table 7-0.M2 in staff's supplemental report dated June 4, 1999 shows a summary of respondents reported failures of water quality tests by regulated contaminant and respondent water utility, not including testing for MTBE and perchlorate, two unregulated contaminants.¹⁶ In total during the 25-year period, respondents together reported 96 failures or tests which exceeded applicable contaminant levels, 83 by Class A and 9 by Class B water utilities. Tables 7-1M-1 through 7-6 show a summary of reported failures by contaminant (not including perchlorate and MTBE), year, and company or district. Utilities reported failures in 46 companies or districts. Several respondents did not have data for the entire 25-year period.

The largest number of failures (61), excluding MTBE and perchlorate, are regarding bacteriological standards established by the Total Coliform Rules and occurred in 1978 and between 1990-1995. The next largest number of failures over the 25-year period reported are as follows: nitrate (13), lead and copper (8), turbidity (8), TCE (3), 1,1-DCE (1), arsenic (1), cyanide (1) and fluoride (1).

The corrective actions respondents indicated were taken regarding specific failures are categorized as follows:

a. Coliform Level - sanitary surveys of water storage and pumping facilities were conducted, along with intensive microbiological testing, and the public was notified. In some cases, the level of disinfectant applied in the surface water treatment process was adjusted. And, in the cases where the source was groundwater, wells were taken out of service and the system was flushed with chlorinated water.

b. Nitrate Level - wells were taken out service and the public was notified. In some cases, after DHS' approval, well water exceeding the nitrate standard was blended with water of lower levels of nitrate to produce a water supply meeting the nitrate MCL. Blending requires DHS' approval and extensive monitoring of the distribution system at different locations.

c. MCLs for VOCs - wells were taken out of service. Depending on the situation, corrective actions were categorized as: (1) investigation was conducted to determine the source of the contamination; (2) water exceeding the VOC standard was blended with water of better quality from other wells; (3) treatment facilities, such as granular activated carbon (GAC) filters and air stripping plant, were constructed to remove the VOC; and, (4) the well was abandoned. The more frequent failures were for TCE, PCE and "1,1, DCE."

d. Lead and Copper - corrosion control treatment facilities were installed at affected wells and monitoring was increased.

Staff requested respondents to supplement their compliance reports with information regarding any MTBE and perchlorate detection by type of test, date of test, district and location, applicable standards, if any, result of the test, and action taken, if any. The OII in this proceeding expressly requested information regarding MTBE¹⁷ and perchlorate.¹⁸

RRB reviewed the responses and found that a substantial majority of respondents provided adequate information. Table 9-0M of staff's June 4, 1999 supplemental report summarizes reported detection by contaminant and utility. Tables 9-1 through 9-5M summarize reported detection by contaminant and district. Five Class As and one Class B reported MTBE detection. Two Class As reported detection higher than the standard for MTBE at the time tests were performed. The substantial majority of MTBE tests were performed in the years 1996 through 1998.

In addition, eight Class As reported perchlorate detection. Two reported higher than the standard at the time tests were performed. The substantial majority of these perchlorate tests were performed in 1997 and 1998. Depending on each case, the action taken by utilities included: (1) continued monitoring of wells and (2) removal of wells from service. In one case, well water exceeding the standard was blended with water having a lower level of perchlorate. Two Class Bs reported that no MTBE or perchlorate test was required by DHS since they purchase water.

Table 9-4M shows that SoCal reported perchlorate detection in its Arden Cordova District's Cordova System. Arden Cordova District has two separate water systems, Arden and Cordova. A closer look at the data submitted indicates that SoCal reported 13 wells with perchlorate detection in the Cordova System. Four of the Cordova System's wells, all removed from service, produced water with perchlorate concentration higher than the standard in effect at the time tests were performed. According to the 1998 Annual Report for the Arden Cordova District, 17 wells were active and four were inactive.

Class B utilities reported no detection of either MTBE or perchlorate.

Staff followed up on this supplemental data with additional data requests to explain discrepancies between numerous respondents' reports and DHS records. RRB does not identify any specific instance of noncompliance that warrants further scrutiny.

9. What Reports (if any) Indicating You Did Not Meet Standards Were Not Filed Correctly or in a Timely Manner (List Reports)?

Table 8-0M in staff's May 17, 1999 supplemental report shows a summary of reported citations for filing incorrect or untimely reports. Six respondents reported a total of 19 citations from EPA and DHS. The majority of citations reported were issued by the EPA under the Lead and Copper Rule for failing to begin required monitoring on time. Twelve respondents, including seven Class A and five Class B water utilities, received no citations. Tables 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3 show a summary of reported citations by water utility district.

10. What Did You Do if the Levels Exceeded Standards?

The respondents interpreted this question two ways. One group, mainly Class A water utilities, responded that the actions taken were in response to cases when MCLs were temporarily exceeded. The second group responded that the actions taken were in cases of temporary excursions and failures. Actions taken regarding specific situations are summarized as follows:

a. Coliform Level - Sanitary surveys of water storage and pumping facilities were conducted, along with intensive microbiological testing, and the public was notified. In some cases, the level of disinfectant applied in the surface water treatment process was adjusted. And, in the cases where the source was groundwater, wells were taken out of service and the system was flushed with chlorine.

b. Nitrate Level - wells were taken out service and the public was notified. In some cases, after DHS' approval, well water exceeding the nitrate standard was blended with water of lower levels of nitrate. Blending requires DHS' approval and extensive monitoring of distribution system at different locations.

c. Temporary Excursion Above MCLs for VOCs - wells were taken out of service, confirmation samples were taken and the water was tested for six months to determine whether excursion was a one-time occurrence. Depending on the situation, the actions taken are categorized as (1) investigation was conducted to determine the source of the contamination; (2) the water exceeding the VOC standard was blended with water of better quality from other wells; (3) treatment facilities, such as GAC filters and air stripping plant, were constructed to remove the VOC; and (4) and the well was put out of service permanently. The more frequently detected VOCs were TCE, PCE and "1,1, DCE."

d. Lead and Copper - corrosion control treatment facilities were installed at affected wells and monitoring was increased.

11. What Information Did You Provide the Customers and When?

The information provided customers was generally in connection with violations of bacteriological, nitrate, and lead and copper levels. One utility reported that it notified the public following the violation of the turbidity performance standard. Another indicated that it issued a Boil Water Order after a severe earthquake. In addition, the majority of respondents reported that they provided customers the Consumer Confidence Report, including a list of each contaminant, its MCL, and the highest and lowest levels present during the year. Also, some respondents reported that they made the Public Health Goals Report available at public meetings. Nearly all respondents indicated that they followed DHS regulations and sent the required information by direct mail or published it in a local newspaper. One respondent reported that it "provided its customers with a letter explaining its dispute with the DHS and stating its own position." Almost all respondents reported the date that information was provided to customers or indicated that they followed the DHS' time requirements.

12. Did You Take any Actions that Were Not Specifically Required by DHS in Testing or Treating the Water or Notifying the Public?

All Class A water utilities explained actions taken which were not required by DHS. Among Class B water utilities, three responded that they took some additional actions, three did not take any actions. The responses are categorized as follows:

a. Monitored sources of water by anticipating new regulations and emerging issues and contaminants, such as perchlorate, MTBE, arsenic, radon, boron, and viruses.

b. Adopted policies that exceeded the monitoring and testing requirements established by DHS.

c. Participated in activities related to areas of customer communication, such as providing conservation material and handouts by mail and at community functions.

d. Participated in evolution of statewide monitoring programs, including cross-connection control and electronic data transmittal to DHS.

e. Implemented treatment technologies such as air stripping VOCs from groundwater and removal of VOCs by carbon adsorption.

f. Provided water quality reports to customers prior to state law mandating such information and provided information to customers about water quality subjects and monitoring results.

g. Encouraged professional staff to participate in the AWWA's activities and provided expertise on advisory committees of the American Water Works Research Foundation and as board members addressing drinking water research.

h. Implemented Water Treatment Operators Certification Programs to further educate field staff.

i. Participated in monitoring chemicals such as VOCs, arsenic, perchlorate, and MTBE in advance of regulations.

B. Additional Scoping Memo Inquiries

After the parties in this proceeding narrowed the alleged harmful contaminants to roughly 30, the Scoping Memo ordered respondents to answer additional questions regarding the specified contaminants and all parties were asked to specify any alleged violations or other alleged problems regarding drinking water quality. CWA and 10 respondents filed responses. Parties representing plaintiffs in pending lawsuits filed no responses to these questions.

In summary, all of the water utilities contend that the water supplied in the last 20 years has been healthful or had no other problems. Six out of the ten utilities responded that they are aware of allegations that water delivered by the utilities is alleged to be unhealthy, unsafe or had other problems. Such allegations have been made in numerous pending lawsuits, this proceeding, DHS citations, Quality Assurance Customer Inquiries and customer complaints. The additional information elicited from parties' responses to the additional questions related to customer complaints of water quality during the past 20 years.

Citizens reports that concerns regarding the healthfulness of the water are raised in customer inquiries and are relatively infrequent. The majority of the time, Citizens resolves the concerns to the customer's satisfaction. Since Citizens has not kept a written log specifically dedicated to recording customer complaints until recently, it could not provide specific information regarding these allegations by the requested date. However, Citizens did provide such information after a search of its full customer service log. SoCal provided a chart detailing the allegations made by customer inquiry and a pending lawsuit for the period May 1987 to April 1999. The chart includes the occurrence, the location, the contaminant alleged and the action taken in each allegation. SJWC indicates that the customer inquiries about water quality since June 1995 have been compiled in a computer database. It comments that the number of inquiries is miniscule compared to the total number of water customers.

Suburban responds that it has been named in eight civil lawsuits, the details of which have previously been supplied to the Commission in its compliance report, but did not indicate the number and basis of Quality Assurance Customer Inquiries. Dominguez responds that it is only aware of two DHS citations and customer inquiries which were not disclosed. Citizens responds that the allegations in civil suits are not specific enough to ascertain a basis for the plaintiffs' claim. In addition, they state that the problem with discovery issues in its litigation prevents them from providing specificity in the alleged occurrences, their location or the contaminants involved. San Gabriel is named in eight lawsuits not specific as to the location of the alleged occurrences, which water utility provided the water, or the period of time over which it occurred. SoCal's chart indicated that between early May 1987 to late April 1999 there was one lawsuit and 114 customer calls alleging poor water quality. Of these customer complaints, 39 were health concerns, 71 cited a variety of unsafe conditions (odor/smell, taste, and appearance), and 5 involved customer inquiries. The specific location was not indicated, nor whether SoCal had supplied the water. SJWC reports one occurrence where an overdose of caustic soda on April 12-13, 1995 led to approximately 250 customer calls.

The customer complaints discussed by respondents, by and large, are complaints not filed with the Commission. Of the six utilities that have received allegations of unsafe drinking water, the earliest time that a utility learned of the allegations is 1980, and the latest was 1997. Outside of the lawsuits, all the utilities that have received complaints believe their actions were in compliance with instruction or orders from the DHS.

Of the six utilities that have allegations that water delivered by the utilities is unhealthy, unsafe or had other problems, four of the utilities also have allegations that the water delivered did not meet the state or federal drinking water requirements and regulations and orders of the Commission.

All respondents replied that they are in compliance with existing state or federal drinking water standards and Commission regulation and orders, and that there is no evidence that these standards are being violated. Likewise, all utilities replied that they are in compliance with existing state or federal primary drinking water quality procedures and Commission-required procedures, and that there is no evidence that these procedures are being violated. All the utilities responded that they have not received allegations that they have failed to comply with DHS testing requirements.

DHS responds that with one exception the regulated utilities have not "unreasonably failed to comply" with DHS regulation or orders, and that Alco Water Company has challenged the propriety of DHS actions regarding a citation in 1993. This matter is currently pending in federal court.

Six of the utilities responded that they are aware of Commission decisions or orders that relate to correction or prevention of safe drinking water with which they all indicate they have complied. Three of these respondents attach the Commission orders in question. Three other respondents were unaware of any such Commission decision or orders for their companies.

C. Discussion

Initially, numerous parties posed numerous objections to the respondent utilities' compliance reports. However, each objection was rectified. Respondents were ordered to provide to all parties supporting documents relied upon to file the compliance reports. Staff timely requested that respondents supplement their compliance reports with statistics regarding secondary MCLs and MTBE and perchlorate test results. Staff verified the compliance filings by randomly sampling 35% of the reported data and followed up on answers given by respondents that conflicted with DHS records. This follow-up substantiated either the company or DHS records. Several respondents who did not report the entire 25-year period were not required by law to maintain records for this length of time.

After review and follow-up of all compliance reports including verifying 35% of responses, staff indicates that respondents have satisfactorily answered the 12 questions posed by the Commission in the compliance reports. Staff and DHS agree with each respondent's representation, except the currently disputed citation of Alco Water Company, that each Class A and B utility has and is satisfactorily complying with DHS standards and orders. Staff concludes that no further inquiry into compliance is needed. Based upon this informed opinion and verification of satisfactory compliance by DHS, we agree, except for Alco Water Company, discussed below.

In staff's comments filed on June 21, 1999, staff concludes that answers to Question 26 in the Scoping Memo were vague and incomplete and that analysis of these answers was meaningless.¹⁹ Some respondents misconstrued this question to report Commission orders or decisions during the past 25 years related to correction of water quality problems, without also reporting those related to prevention, as requested. The number of such orders that were reported ranged from 1 or 2 to 214. Staff may follow-up on perceived incomplete responses in the next phase of this proceeding, the new OIR/OII. As a prelude to formal Commission review in the G.O. 103 rulemaking/investigation, utilities should meet with staff to ensure that the answers to Questions 26 and 27 are neither vague or incomplete before any resubmission.

We believe that further analysis of customer complaints is warranted to determine whether these complaints may be a precursor to significant water quality problems and whether rules regarding the reporting to this Commission the number and type of customer complaints is warranted. Therefore, we recommend that this review be accomplished in a separate rulemaking following the conclusion of this proceeding. The focus of this future proceeding should be to consider revisions of GO 103 long-planned by the staff plus issues warranting additional review identified in this proceeding.