STATE OF FLORIDA - Public Service Commission

ORDER NO. PSC-12-0102-FOF-WS
DOCKETNO. 100330-WS
PAGE 24
AUF issues PBWNs in advance of planned outages necessary to make system
improvements. For example, witness Luitweiler testified that the clearwells at the Tomka View
and Twin Rivers water systems had to be taken out of service to install liners to address a
directive from the Volusia County €ID. AUF provided advance PBWNs and delivered bottled
water to customers. With the implementation of the federal Ground Water Rule in Florida in
2010, witness Luitweiler indicated DEP has required additional testing of raw water (prior to
disinfection) for bacteria, and has required PBWNs to be issued in circumstanCes where bacteria
are found in the well, even if si~~ultaueow sampling of the disinfected water at the point of entry
or in the Wbution system are clear of bacteria This new rule has resulted in AUF issuing
several PBWNs in the past two years. Additionally, witness Luitweiler explained that a Tier 1
PBWN has long been required when a combination of routine and follow-up distribution system
samples on collsecutive days test positive for a combination of total and fecal coliform bacteria
Such an event is generally considered to be an indication of bacterial con tamination of the
distribution system warrantin ’ g prompt and aggressive notification of customers to avoid or
minimize exposure. Witness Luitweiler stated that AUF has never experienced a violation
caused by this category of ckcumstances.
Witness Luitweiler described Am’s response to incidents at Jasmine Lakes, Palm
Terrace, and Chuluota. On April 16,2010, AUF issued a PBWN at the Jasmine Lakes system
when well test d t s were found positive for E. coli bacteria, In that situation, AUF notified
customers using an outbound phone campaign with a recorded message, posted the notice on its
website, and provided a copy to the after-hours call Senrice. In November 2010, valve
replacements and installation of new valves prompted notifications at Palm Terrace in
conformance with DEP regulations. Phone notification was also used during this event. In May
2011, a break on a 4-inch water main at Palm Terrace occurred and PBWNs were hand
delivered. Another main break occurred on a Cinch main in Palm Terrace in August 2011; in
that case, AUF implemented an emergency telephone notification to 1,660 phone numbers. A
June 201 1 planned outage was implemented in the Chuluota system to accommodate a project by
Seminole County to replace and re-align storm water piping and replace sidewalks. Witness
Luitwder indicated that AUF prepared and distributed, by hand delivery, notices to potentidy
afFected customers of anticipated localized water service interruptions necessitated by the main
relocation work.
OPC witness Dismukes testified that the PBWNs were of particular concern for the
customers and provided several examples of customer complaints about notices being untimely
or non-existent OPC witness Vandiver prepared a summary of staff witness testimony
addressing PBWNs. She reported that in that list, there are eight witnesses that addressed 183
instances where notices were provided She noted that one witness, staff witness Rodriquez, did
not identify how many instances, but referenced occasions since 2009 that DEP had been
notified days after the interruption of seMce by the utility through the local health department
who had received complaints &om customers. Witness Vaudiver pointed out that, except for
staff witness Rodriguez, the other staff witnesses made statements that they have been notified
timely and that AUF had timely notitied the customers. However, witness Vandiver believed
that these statements appear to be based on self-reporting by AUF. She noted that staff witness
Carrico indicated that her office was properly notified of each of these PBWNs in a timely