The Issue Pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes, the sole issue for determination in this case is whether the proposed site for the Petitioner’s electrical power plant “is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.” (All statutory references are to the 2001 codification of the Florida Statutes.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Calpine intends to license, construct, own, and operate a new electrical power plant in unincorporated Indian River County, Florida. Calpine filed an application with DEP under the PPSA for the proposed electrical power plant, which is known as the Blue Heron Energy Center ("the Project"). The Site for the Blue Heron Energy Center The site (“Site”) for the Blue Heron Energy Center is located in southeastern Indian River County, approximately 5 miles southwest of the City of Vero Beach. The Site is approximately 50.5 acres in size and is currently undeveloped. The primary vegetation on the Site is pine flatwoods. The Site contains two small wetlands that will be preserved. The general area surrounding the Site is a mixture of agricultural, industrial, institutional, utility and residential land uses. The Interstate 95 ("I-95") corridor is adjacent to the west side of the Site. Just west of the I-95 corridor are two existing electrical transmission line corridors operated by Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL"). There is an existing natural gas pipeline owned by Florida Gas Transmission Company located between the two electrical transmission line corridors. The Indian River County Correctional Institution is located directly northwest of the Site. Farther to the north are Indian River County's landfill and several industrial (citrus processing) facilities. There also is one single-family residence located north of the Site. The eastern boundary of the Site is adjacent to 74th Avenue, which is adjacent to a drainage ditch known as the Lateral C Canal. A citrus grove and an industrial wastewater sprayfield are located on the east side of the Lateral C Canal. The southern boundary of the Site abuts the border between Indian River County and St. Lucie County. The I-95 corridor and undeveloped lands lie south of the Site in St. Lucie County. Southeast of the Site, in St. Lucie County, is a residential development known as Spanish Lakes Fairways. The Site is separated from this residential development by a drainage ditch, a berm, and an existing buffer of mature trees and dense vegetation. Description of the Proposed Blue Heron Project The Blue Heron Energy Center will involve the construction and operation of a combined cycle, natural gas- fired, electrical power plant that will generate approximately 1080 MW (nominal). The Blue Heron Project will be built in two phases, each generating approximately 540 MW (nominal). The first phase of the Project will include two combustion turbines, two heat recovery steam generators, a steam turbine, exhaust stacks, cooling towers, a treatment and storage system for process water, a treatment system and detention basin for storm water, an operations control center, transformers and related switching gear, and other ancillary structures and features. The second phase of the Project will be similar to the first phase. The Blue Heron Energy Center will connect to Florida's electrical grid with two overhead transmission lines that will extend west from the Site approximately 1400 feet (over I-95) to the existing FPL transmission lines. The Project will obtain natural gas by installing an underground pipe that will extend from the Site approximately 1400 feet to the west (under I-95) to where the Project will interconnect with the natural gas pipeline systems operated by Gulfstream and Florida Gas Transmission Company. Calpine has obtained options to purchase the land west of the Site where Calpine's gas pipeline corridor and electrical transmission line corridor will be located. The primary source of cooling and process water for the Blue Heron Energy Center will be surface water (storm water), which will be obtained from the Lateral C Canal or the County's proposed stormwater park. Potable water and domestic wastewater services will be provided by Indian River County. No groundwater will be used by the Project. The Blue Heron Project will not discharge any industrial or domestic wastewater to any surface water or groundwater. Existing Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances The Site is designated Agricultural (AG-1) in Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan. Under the Comprehensive Plan, the AG-1 designation allows for the construction of electrical power plants, like the Project, as "public facilities." Indian River County has adopted land development regulations and zoning districts that implement the intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Under the zoning code, like the Comprehensive Plan, the Site is located in an Agricultural (A-1) district. The County’s zoning code expressly allows the construction of "public and private utilities, heavy" as a special exception use in A-1 zoning districts. The County's zoning code defines "utilities, public or private, heavy" to include "all major electrical generation plants (generating fifty (50) megawatts or more)." Thus, the A-1 zoning designation for the Site allows the development of the Project as a special exception use. Special Exception Use Section 971.05 of the County Code sets forth the procedures and criteria for obtaining the County's approval of a special exception use. Among other things, Section 971.05(9) of the County Code requires an applicant for a special exception use to demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. Calpine has worked with the County to ensure that every aspect of the Blue Heron Energy Center will comply with the County's criteria. Consistent with the requirements of Section 971.05 of the County Code, Calpine filed an application with the County for approval of a special exception use and conceptual site plan for the Blue Heron Project. The Special Use Exception Application ("SUEA") fully described the Project, including the corridors for the proposed transmission lines and natural gas pipeline. The County’s staff reviewed Calpine’s SUEA and recommended approval, subject to certain conditions. On August 9, 2001, the County's Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and then recommended approval of Calpine’s SUEA, with conditions. On September 18, 2001, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners ("County Commission") held a duly noticed public hearing and then approved Calpine’s SUEA, with conditions. It is "typical" for the County to include conditions as part of the County's approval for a special exception use. If Calpine complies with the County's conditions for its special exception use, the County will "automatically approve the final site plan" for the Blue Heron Project. No one appealed the County Commission's approval of Calpine’s SUEA and the deadline for filing an appeal has passed. Consistency With Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances The County staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the County Commission considered whether the Project is consistent and in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances, pursuant to Section 971.05 of the County Code, and then they approved the Project, with conditions. The evidence presented in the Land Use Hearing demonstrated that the Site is consistent and in compliance with Indian River County’s Comprehensive Plan. The evidence also demonstrated that the Site is consistent and in compliance with Indian River County’s zoning ordinances. In the Prehearing Stipulation, Indian River County, St. Lucie County, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Public Service Commission, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the St. Johns River Water Management District either agreed with or did not dispute Calpine’s assertion that the Site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. Indian River County also stipulated that it supports Calpine’s plan to construct and operate the Blue Heron Project on the Site. Public Notice of the Land Use Hearing On December 11, 2000, Calpine published a “Notice of Filing of Application for Electrical Power Plant Site Certification” in the Vero Beach Press-Journal, which is a newspaper of general circulation published in Indian River County, Florida. On October 9, 2001, the Administrative Law Judge issued an “Order Granting Continuance and Re-Scheduling Land Use Hearing” and served a copy of his Order on all of the parties to this proceeding. The Judge’s Order stated that the Land Use Hearing would be conducted on February 6, 2002. On December 14, 2001, Calpine published a “Notice of Land Use and Zoning Hearing on Proposed Power Plant Facility” in the Vero Beach Press-Journal. On December 14, 2001, the Department published notice of the Land Use Hearing in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The public notices for the Land Use Hearing satisfy the informational and other requirements set forth in Section 403.5115, and Rules 62-17.280 and 62-17.281(4), Florida Administrative Code.
Conclusions For Petitioner Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P.: David S. Dee, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For the Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Audubon of Florida and the Pelican Island Audubon Society: Kevin S. Doty, Esquire Hatch & Doty, P.A. 1701 A1A, Suite 220 Vero Beach, Florida 32963
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Land Use Final Order in this case finding that the Site of the Blue Heron Energy Center is consistent and in compliance with the existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Ross Stafford Burnaman, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Paul Bangel, Esquire County Attorney's Office 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Kathy Beddell, Esquire Harold Mclean, General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 David S. Dee, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kevin S. Doty, Esquire Hatch & Doty, P.A. 1701 Highway A1A, Suite 220 Vero Beach, Florida 32963-2206 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Charles Lee, Sr., Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1331 Palmetto Avenue Suite 110 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Terry E. Lewis, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Daniel S. McIntyre, Esquire St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue 3rd Floor Administrative Annex Fort Pierce, Florida 34952 Cari L. Roth, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Roger G. Saberson, Esquire 70 Southeast Fourth Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether the termination of Respondent, Otis Paul Whatley, was in accordance with the personnel procedures established by the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority.
Findings Of Fact ECUA was created in 1981 pursuant to Chapter 81-376, Laws of Florida. By law, it provides utility services throughout Escambia County, Florida. Mr. Whatley was employed by ECUA. On October 31, 2001, Mr. Whatley signed an acknowledgement that he received the ECUA Employee Handbook. The ECUA Employee Handbook is a summary of benefits, policies, procedures, and rules, which are more fully set forth in ECUA's Human Resources Policy Manual. While on the ECUA Rotation Schedule Standby List on Sunday, July 26, 2009, Mr. Whatley, and his co-worker Jonathan Wheat, were required to be available to make repairs when summoned by ECUA customers. Mr. Whatley submitted a Daily Overtime Report dated July 26, 2009, which indicated that he worked on that day from 9:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. at 926 Lake Terrace, in Pensacola, Florida. The overtime report further stated that he worked from 10:30 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. at 1283 La Paz Street, in Pensacola. He further asserted that he worked at 402 West Lloyd Street, from 6:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. According to the Global Positioning System (GPS) installed on the ECUA truck assigned to Mr. Whatley, he did not depart his residence at the time he claimed to be working at 926 Lake Terrace or at 1283 La Paz Street. Moreover, the evidence provided by the GPS indicated that he was at the 402 West Lloyd Street for four hours rather than the five claimed as overtime. Mr. Whatley's co-worker, Jonathon Wheat, did work at 926 Lake Terrace and at 1283 La Paz Street, but he worked alone. Mr. Wheat joined in Mr. Whatley's prevarication with regard to the quantity of time expended at 402 West Lloyd Street. Mr. Wheat confessed to his prevarication when confronted. Mr. Whatley lied about his whereabouts when initially confronted, but eventually admitted that his timesheet contained false entries. It is found as a fact that Mr. Whatley, on his time sheet for July 26, 2009, claimed one hour and a half overtime for work at 926 Lake Terrace, one-half-hour overtime for work or at 1283 La Paz Street, and an hour more overtime than actually worked at 402 West Lloyd Street. None of the forgoing periods were worked by Mr. Whatley. Accordingly, these entries on his time sheet were false.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Executive Director of the Emerald Coast Utility Authority, based on the findings of fact found herein, impose such penalty on Otis Paul Whatley, as he or she determines to be appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Otis Whatley 8655 Ramblewood Place Pensacola, Florida 32514 John E. Griffin, Esquire Carson & Adkins 2930 Wellington Circle, North, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Stephen E. Sorrell, Executive Director Emerald Coast Utilities Authority 9255 Sturdevant Street Post Office Box 15311 Pensacola, Florida 32514-0311
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Joseph Davidow, was licensed as a general contractor with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On August 3, 1978, the Respondent entered into an agreement with Rubin Zimmerman, Vice-president of Gilbert's Fish Camp, Inc., located in Monroe County, to construct an addition and make alterations to an existing motel. The contract specified the work to be done, for which the Respondent was to receive $190,000 with a completion date within 90 days of the contract. The Respondent was recommended to Mr. Zimmerman, the complainant in this case, by Mr. Zimmerman's architect on the project, Seymore Drexler, AIA. The Respondent originally bid the project at $210,000 of which $19,000 was allocated for electrical work to be performed by a qualified sub-contractor. The complainant believed that the original bid for electrical work was too high and suggested that the Respondent contact Mr. Charles Katzman of Kay Electric, a long-time friend of the complainant. Mr. Katzman was able to obtain his permits on the project despite being unlicensed in Monroe County, a fact which was not known by either the Respondent or the complainant at the time. Mr. Katzman bid $13,500 on the project which was $5,500 under the lowest bid received by the Respondent and was, therefore, awarded the project. During the course of the construction, numerous problems arose which affected the progress on the site. The complainant and his business partner, Harry Gilbert, made numerous requests for changes in the original plans and specifications. The "extras" requested by the complainant and/or his business partner were generally done orally on the site and at times through direct negotiations between the complainant and the Respondent's sub-contractors or workmen. The changes in the specifications included modifications to the flooring, patio, laundry and storage room, grade beams, pilings, walkways, stairs, patio wall, diningroom walls, linen closet, bathroom windows and walls, outside planter, doors and support system for electrical cooling. A dispute arose between the Respondent and the complainant and Mr. Gilbert over the cost and the extent of the change orders. Additionally, the Respondent was concerned because the extras requested by the complainant diverted his sub-contractors and/or workmen from the basic project to areas not contemplated by the contract. Certain of the electrical work performed by Mr. Katzman was negotiated separately from the original contract. Romex an illegal electrical wire was used on the project, but this was not known by the Respondent nor was Romex used in any of the electrical work specified in the original plans. Due to the continuing dispute over the cost of the extras and the diversion of workers for additional "extras," the Respondent sent the Monroe County Building and Zoning Department on April 12, 1979, a notice of withdrawal as general contractor on the subject project. Since that time liens have been filed against the project by suppliers of materials and/or labor which have been satisfied by the corporation. Civil litigation involving Kay Electric also has been instituted. The building inspection reports maintained by Monroe County concerning this project are incomplete.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department dismiss the complaint filed against the Respondent, Joseph Davidow. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Arthur W. Karlick, Esquire 1454 NW 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 80-382 JOSEPH DAVIDOW, CG C007463 Respondent. /
The Issue The parties stipulated that the Petitioner's financial responsibility and morals were not an issue. The only basis for the Board's denial was the Petitioner's alleged lack of experience. Petitioner and Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. These proposals are discussed in detail in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is presently employed as an electrical inspector for Hillsborough County, Florida. He has held this position for approximately two and one-half (2 1/2) years. He holds a master's electrician's license issued by Hillsborough County but is prohibited by terms of his employment as an electrical inspector from engaging in any electrical contracting activity. Petitioner is technically experienced as an electrician. Prior to his employment as an electrical inspector, Petitioner was employed by Mobil Chemical Company which operates several phosphate mines in central Florida. The Petitioner was employed at its Fort Meade mine. The Fort Meade mine, or plant, is a substantial operation producing approximately four (4) million tons of phosphate per year at the time when Petitioner was employed. The mining area occupies several hundred acres and the working or processing area occupies approximately ten (10) of those acres. The working area comprises of a flotation plant, a washer plant, a sizing section, a shipping area where the rock is loaded on railroad cars, a maintenance area, and an office complex. The plant ran three (3) shifts around the clock and employed approximately one hundred (100) persons. All of the major equipment to include the 30 and 40 yard draglines at the Fort Meade plant alone contained in excess of one hundred (100) electric motors each with its own fuse box and disconnect. The Petitioner was employed by Nobil Chemical Company for twenty (20) years (1962-1982); 16 years as an electrician and four years as supervisor of the electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade plant. He was responsible for all electrical repairs, maintenance, and new construction at the plant for all three shifts. His direct superior was the department chief who was in charge of all the electrical departments at all of Mobil's phosphate mining locations. Approximately twenty (20 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on new construction projects. Approximately forty (40 percent) percent of petitioner's time was spent on regular maintenance and repairs. Fifteen (15 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on emergency repairs. The remainder of petitioner's time was spent on miscellaneous projects. Petitioner supervised a staff of ten (10) men: two (2) crewmen, four linemen, and four (4) electricians. The Petitioner was responsible for estimating the cost of jobs for his immediate superior to include the cost of materials and the number of man hours. The Petitioner was responsible for counting and reporting the number of hours his employees worked in turning this information into the company's payroll section. Petitioner had the power to request overtime work for his employees and made recommendations concerning hiring and firing personnel. On new construction the Petitioner's responsibilities began with doing takeoffs from blueprints provided for the job and supervising the work through to its completion. He was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Fort Meade facility to include small electrical motors, large electrical motors, office lighting, transformers, and the large draglines. Petitioner's experience included experience with three (3) phase electrical power, high voltage electrical service, and lower voltages used in small motors, lights and appliances. The electrical department which the Petitioner headed provided service only to Mobil's Fort Meade plant. Mobil is not an electrical contractor; however, its electrical department provided extensive services which are comparable to those an outside electrical contracting service would have provided. Although the petitioner did not prepare a payroll for those persons who he supervised, he did serve as the clerk for his church for five (5) years during which time he was responsible for preparing the payroll for the church's employees. The petitioner applied in 1982 to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination. His application was approved by the Respondent and the Petitioner sat for the examination on two occasions, failing both examinations. Petitioner reapplied to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination in 1984 and was denied by the Respondent based upon lack of satisfactory experience. The Petitioner held a responsible management position with Mobil at the Fort Meade plant as supervisor of electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade facility for four (4) years. The Petitioner never negotiated a construction contract, was never bonded as a contractor, never obtained insurance to cover his operation as a contractor, and never sought a building permit for any of the electrical work done at the Fort Meade facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board disapprove the application of Cecil U. Lane to sit for the statewide electrical contractor's license. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Jerry W. Hendry Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Electrical Contractors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric S. Ruff, Esquire Post Office Box TT Plant City, Florida 33566 Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Unit No. 2 is certified to be a nuclear facility situated on 300 acres of a 1132 acre site previously cleared and filled on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The site is presently occupied by Unit No. 1, also a nuclear facility. Hutchinson Island is a typical but highly developed coastal barrier island of the Florida Atlantic Coast. The site prior to development was predominantly flat and water covered, with dense vegetation typical of coastal mangrove swamp. On the Eastern side of the island, the land rises slightly in a dune to approximately 15 feet above mean low water. The cooling system for Unit No. 2 is essentially the same as that for Unit No. 1. It is proposed that the existing intake and discharge canals, present on the 300 acre tract for Unit No. 1, will be utilized by Unit No. 2. As originally planned and presently certified, the discharge structure for cooling water from Unit No. 2 consists of an open discharge canal, excavated to elevation - 17 feet. This canal is 28 feet wide at the bottom, with a slope of to 3. The open discharge canal extends from the plant approximately 2200 feet to a point 400 feet west of the existing shoreline. From there, a 12 foot diameter concrete conduit, for each unit, is buried beneath the ground and carries the discharged water under the beach and ocean floor out to the ocean discharge structures. The conduit for Unit No. 2 will extend approximately 2800 feet from the shoreline. The Unit No. 2 ocean discharge structure consists of a multiport diffuser containing 48 ports. Each port will be 1.5 feet in diameter, spaced 22.5 feet between centers and oriented to discharge horizontally. The jets will be mounted in an alternating manner on either side of a 1,060 foot manifold. Ocean depth at the discharge point will be approximately - 35 to - 40 feet mean low water. Exit velocity of the discharged water from each port will be approximately 13 feet per second. The effects on the environment which would occur from construction of the discharge conduit with the multi-port diffuser originally planned for Unit No. 2 were thoroughly studied and were the subject of extensive testimony at the 1975 certification hearing. Paragraphs 11, 44, 46, 50, 53, 54, 55 and 64 of the Findings of Fact contained in the October 8, 1975 Recommended Order, discuss and summarize the studies and testimony. On January 11, 1980, Florida Power & Light Company filed and served on all parties a "Petition for Modification of Terms of Certification" pursuant to Section 403.516(3), Florida Statutes. The petition requests a modification to the certification previously issued to reflect proposed design modifications to the cooling water discharge system which are necessary to account for design head losses resulting from the final multi-port diffuser design and to allow a margin for greater than anticipated marine fouling effects. The petition filed by Florida Power & Light Company seeks to modify the original design from that described in paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order entered October 8, 1975 by widening the distance which the open discharge canal extends along the shoreline, increasing the size and length of the conduit, and increasing the number of ports in the diffuser. On January 28, 1980, pursuant to Sections 120.57 and 403.615(3), Florida Statutes, and proper notice published in the local newspapers and served on all parties, a formal hearing was held at the St. Lucie County Library, 124 North Indian River Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. At the hearing, Florida Power & Light Company presented three (3) witnesses who testified in support of the Petition for Modification of Terms of Certification. These witnesses, Clifford Kent, James O'Hara, and J. Ross Wilcox, described the need for, and the effects of the proposed modifications. Their testimony demonstrated that the proposed modification will result in improved availability of St. Lucie Unit No. 2, and will not result in a significant environmental impact or effect to the public that was not previously considered in the certification proceedings. Florida Power & Light Company also introduced into the record documentary evidence reflecting that it has applied for and been granted the following permits and approvals for this project: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Permit No. 79K-1019 issued January 7, 1980, and State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Department of Natural Resources) Easement No. 25624 (2670-56)A, St. Lucie County, approved January 8, 1980. The testimony and evidence were not opposed or contradicted by testimony or evidence of any other party. At the hearing on the petition to modify, the Department of Environmental Regulation presented evidence indicating that the effects anticipated from construction of the modified discharge system would increase turbidity in the ocean during construction in the immediate area of the excavation. Adequate control structures are to be used however. The construction of the canal extension would remove approximately two acres of impounded mangrove habitat. To mitigate this loss, Florida power & Light Company proposes to breach the dike on the northern mangrove area to allow approximately 50 acres of mangrove to function more normally with the Indian River estuary. The environmental effects from operation of the revised Unit No. discharge system will be approximately the same as the original proposal. The Department of Environmental Regulation has recommended that the proposed modification be certified subject to the following additional conditions: That the dike around the mangrove area north of the discharge canal be opened up to Big Mud Creek by breaching the dike in three (3) places. Each breach in the dike shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') wide at the bottom and the bottom elevation of the breach shall not be higher than one foot below mean sea level (- 1 MSL) or deeper than - 3 MSL. That the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Beaches and Shores be allowed to inspect the dune once restored. Florida Power and Light Company has agreed to the imposition of the proposed conditions. The Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County has stated that its experts have concluded that the anticipated effects on the environment from the proposed modification will not be dramatically different from those which have previously occurred. Accordingly, the Alliance does not oppose this petition to modify.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner's application for a commercial telephone seller license pursuant to provisions of Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Gerovicap Pharmaceutical Corporation, Inc., a Nevada Corporation. Petitioner was incorporated in 1988. Petitioner has no offices in any state other than Nevada. Petitioner has been operating telemarketing services for a period of approximately 10 years. Respondent is the state agency charged with the enforcement of state regulation of telemarketing businesses in accordance with provisions of Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes. The application submitted by Petitioner to Respondent for licensure as a commercial telephone seller listed three legal actions taken against Petitioner in the states of Florida, Oregon and Wisconsin. Petitioner entered into an Agreed Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit for Dade County, Florida, on October 5, 1992. At that time, Petitioner accepted responsibility for running a mail advertisement promotion in Florida, advising potential customers to call a toll free number to place orders although Petitioner had not met the State of Florida's registration requirements. As a part of the settlement, Petitioner agreed to refrain from advertising and promoting sweepstakes in Florida in violation of state requirements and paid a total of $2,500 to cover a civil penalty, as well as attorney fees and costs. Petitioner entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance in Circuit Court in Marion County, Oregon, on August 7, 1992. Petitioner agreed at that time to refrain from engaging in telephone solicitations in the state of Oregon and to pay $7,500 in investigative costs and attorney fees to the Oregon Department of Justice. On September 11, 1992, a Consent Judgment was entered in the Circuit Court for Waukesha County, Wisconsin. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the judgment enjoined Petitioner from engaging in certain sweepstakes activities and ordered Petitioner to pay a civil forfeiture to the state of Wisconsin in the amount of $10,000 for various violations of that state's telemarketing regulations. In accordance with provisions of Section 501.612(1)(c), Florida Statutes, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for licensure in the State of Florida as a commercial telephone seller as a result of the Florida, Oregon and Wisconsin legal actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings, pursuant to requirements of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Accepted in substance. 3.-5. Rejected, relevance. 6.-8. Subordinate to HO findings on this point. Rejected, unnecessary. Accepted, but not verbatim. 11.-12. Rejected, argument, relevancy. Accepted. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevancy. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-7. Accepted in substance. Rejected, recitation of statute. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry Fleischer, President Gerovicap Pharmaceutical Corporation 1785 East Sahara Ave., Suite 160 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Jerome A. DePalma, Esquire 3201 South Maryland Parkway Suite 326 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 John S. Koda, Esquire Office of General Counsel Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Richard Tritschler General Counsel 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Rm 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether Tri-County Electric Cooperative (TCEC) should be required to identify and transfer certain customer accounts for which it provided service between July 25, 1977 and August 31, 1981 to Florida Power Corporation (FPC) or whether the 1981 territorial agreement entered into between Petitioner and Respondent allows TCEC to continue to serve those customers it did not transfer between July 25, 1977 and August 31, 1981, as required by the terms of the 1976 territorial agreement. It must be also determined whether TCEC should pay to FPC certain revenues attributable to those customers.
Findings Of Fact FPC is a public utility subject to the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 366, Florida Statutes. TCEC is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission pursuant to Section 366.04(2), Florida Statutes. On August 5, 1976, the Petitioner and Respondent entered into a territorial agreement which assigned exclusive retail electric service territories to each of those utilities in Madison, Jefferson and Taylor counties. That agreement was approved by the Florida Public Service Commission effective July 25, 1977, by Order no. 79-12, issued in docket no. 760664-EU. The agreement provided in pertinent part at Article II, Section 2.2, as follows: Neither party shall hereafter serve or offer to serve a new retail customer located in the territorial area of the other party, unless on a temporary basis such other party shall request it in writing to do so. . . . any such temporary service shall be discontinued when the party in which service area it is located shall provide such service. The term "new customers" as used in that agreement includes applicants for electric service at existing points of delivery, where an existing customer had terminated service. A clarification to that effect was stipulated into the record by the parties as Exhibit 6. That agreement and its clarification thus means that a news customer is any retail electric consumer applying for service to either company or cooperative after the date of entry of the Public Service Commission's order of July 25, 1977, including a new electric service consumer applying for a structure, building, or dwelling never before served, or a consumer or member applying for service at the same structure, building or dwelling previously utilized by an existing customer who terminated service for various reasons. The term does not include spouses of former customers nor other relatives who obtain title or possession of a dwelling or other structure by will or the law of intestate succession and who seek or wish continued the electric service. On September 30, 1980, the parties entered into an "Amended Agreement" (in evidence as Petitioner's exhibit 5) which provides in pertinent part as follows: SECTION 0.4 Whereas, the parties have heretofore entered into an agreement dated August 5, 1976 for the purposes of avoiding the duplication of electric service facilities which would otherwise result from their contiguous and overlapping service areas in said counties; and SECTION 0.5 Whereas, the parties are now desirous of amending said agreement by redefining the allocation of their respective retail service areas and the terms and conditions applicable thereto in order to facilitate and further the purposes of said agreement, subject, however, to the approval of the Florida Public Service Commission to Chapter 366, Florida Statutes; SECTION 0.6 Now, therefore, in fulfillment of the purposes and desires aforesaid, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, which shall be construed as being interdependent, the parties do hereby agree to amend said agreement dated August 5, 1976, by deleting said agreement in its entirety and restating the same as follows: * * * SECTION 1.6 NEW CUSTOMERS As used herein, the term `new customers' shall mean all retail electric consumers applying for service to either the company or the cooperative after July 25, 1977, and located within the territorial area of either party at the time such application is made; provided, however, that the term "new customers" shall not include any such applicant for service who was residing in the structure, building or dwelling for which application for service is made at the time an existing customer terminated service. * * * SECTION 1.7 EXISTING CUSTOMERS As used herein, the term "existing customers" shall mean all retail electric consumers receiving service on or before the effective date of this Amended Agreement from either party, and whose point of service is located in the territorial area of the other party. * * * SECTION 2.2 NEW CUSTOMERS The parties shall each have the right and the responsibility to provide retail electric service to all new customers within their respective territorial areas. Neither party shall hereafter serve or offer to serve a new customer located in the territorial area of the other party, except on an interim basis as provided in Section 2.3 below. * * * SECTION 2.5 EXISTING CUSTOMERS This Agreement is intended to apply to new customers and nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to preclude either party from continuing to service its existing customers. * * * SECTION 4.3 PRIOR AGREEMENT This Agreement shall amend, restate and supercede the Agreement between the parties dated August 5, 1976, upon the approval hereof by the Florida Public Service Commission as set forth in Section 4.1 above. Prior to such approval, or in the event such approval is not obtained, said Agreement dated August 5, 1976, shall remain in full force and effect." The Agreement referenced as that one dated August 5, 1976, is the same Agreement finally approved by Order of the Florida Public Service Commission on July 25, 1977, which became its effective date. That amended Agreement was finally approved by Order of the Commission of August 31, 1981 Mr. Grant M. Houston, northern district manager for FPC testified that he personally discussed with TCEC representatives the fact that customers had not been transferred between 1977 and 1981. Mr. Burnett of TCEC acknowledged that there were customers who had not been transferred during that period. Mr. Houston established that this discussion concerned only those customers who were properly subject to transfer under the earlier Agreement, where there had been a change of ownership of the residence involved. The record established, through party admission and testimony of Mr. Houston, that there were 15 or 20 and potentially more customers, who should have been transferred by TCEC to FPC, as existing customers terminated service and new customers applied for service at that residence or service point, or as new homes were constructed in areas assigned to FPC pursuant to the 1977 Agreement, during the period July 25, 1977 to August 31, 1981. In this connection Mr. M. C. Burnett, who was manager of TCEC for twenty years, until he retired May 25, 1989, acknowledged that as manager of TCEC, he refused to transfer customers to FPC from 1977 to 1981. Mr. Burnett established, however, that he did transfer customers to FPC where property had changed hands after the effective date of the Agreement of 1981, and it was established that TCEC has abided by the 1981 Agreement from its effective date forward to the present time. Those 15 or 20 identified customers were connected by TCEC to its service, without the knowledge or approval of FPC. The 1977 Agreement required the transfer of these accounts to FPC. The operative language of the Amendment to the Agreement as approved by the Florida Public Service Commission in 1981 was not truly intended by the parties to discharge TCEC's responsibility to transfer those customers, under the original 1977 Agreement, who requested service for residences or locations where existing customers had terminated services and/or had applied for service for a new home constructed in areas assigned to FPC under the 1977 Agreement. Section 1.6 of the Amended Agreement of 1981 describes, "new customers" (those subject to transfer to the utility in whose territory they reside means all retail electric consumers applying for service to either utility or the cooperative after July 25, 1977. This would seem to affirm the obligation by TCEC to make transfers of any such new customers from July 25, 1977 forward, if those new customers resided in the territory assigned to FPC. That 1981 Amended Agreement is ambiguous, however, because the term "existing customers" contained therein, describes existing customers as those served by either the utility or the cooperative on or before the effective date of the Amended Agreement, (1981). That is in August or October, 1981, which definition might be interpreted to include those customers otherwise identified in the same Agreement as new customers to the extent they began `service after July 25, 1977. In any event, TCEC has failed to transfer those customers identified as initiating service between July 25, 1977 and August 31, 1981. FPC has demanded that all such accounts be transferred.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be ordered to identify all accounts initiating service during the period July 25, 1977 to August 31, 1981, in areas awarded to FPC under that 1977 agreement, and that all such customers meeting the criteria of Section 2.2 of the 1977 agreement be immediately transferred to FPC for service pursuant to the agreement. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Florida Power Corporation's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-14. Accepted. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-6. Accepted. Respondents's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not as to its purported material import. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as constituting, to some extent, a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip D. Havens, Esquire Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Ernest M. Page, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 90 Madison, FL 32340 Marsha Rule, Esquire Michael Palecki, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0863 Steve Tribble, Director of Records Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 David Swafford, Executive Director Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Susan Clark, General Counsel Public Service Commission Room 212 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850
The Issue The issues are whether Florida Power and Light may backbill James Kiselak for electricity diverted from a residential electric meter, and for costs of investigation, and whether it may decline to transfer the account for the residence at which the electricity was diverted to the name of Pat Kintz until the backbill and the costs of investigation are paid.
Findings Of Fact Mr. James Kiselak has, for a number of years, been the customer of record for electric service provided by Florida Power and Light Company to a residence located at 3987 NW 163rd Street in Opa Locka, Florida. Mr. Kiselak had been accused in 1985 of current diversion by removing the meter and inverting it. After an investigation, Mr. Kiselak paid a back bill for current diversion. As part of the resolution of the first current diversion matter, the old meter, #5C75910, was removed and replaced with meter #5C98980 on January 27, 1986. The meter was brand new at the time it was installed. This is not a situation where a new resident has become the customer of record at a home and "inherited" a meter which had been tampered with by a prior resident. In August of 1989 Florida Power and Light Company received a tip that the customer at the Kiselak residence was removing the meter from the socket. A meterman was sent to investigate on September 17, 1989, who found only a hole in the acrylic canopy over the meter. The meter was reinspected by Mr. Chase Vessels on March 18, 1990. He found a wire placed through the hole in the acrylic canopy which stopped the meter disc from turning and registering the use of electricity. At that time he saw that electricity was being consumed because a wall unit air conditioner was operating, a freezer located outside the home was operating, and the outside lights were on. That meter was removed and taken under lock and key where it was tested by Emory Curry on April 4, 1990. Mr. Curry found that the wire through the hole in the canopy had stopped the disc from turning, and that there were drag marks on the top of the disc. When the obstructing wire was removed, tests showed that the meter registered current usage appropriately. The meter has been kept in a locked meter box, and FPL has maintained a log of all persons who have had access to the meter in that box since that time. From the time the meter was tested by Mr. Curry on April 4, 1990, no other person has had access to the meter, the meter was locked again at the close of the hearing on November 4, 1991, in the meter box. The wire was maintained in a separate envelope and locked in the meter box as well. An investigator for Florida Power and Light Company, Joe Brenner, observed the residence at 3987 NW 163rd Street on January 23, 24, and 25, 1991, February 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, 1991, and February 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1991. In the yard in front of the home a Mazda truck was parked, as well as a Mazda RX7, 2- door automobile, which had no license tag. On January 23, Mr. Brenner saw a gentleman come out, go to the mailbox, remove mail, go through it in a manner consistent with receiving mail at his place of residence and re-enter the home. A credit report obtained by Florida Power and Light Company from Equifax Credit Information Services in North Miami Beach, Florida, shows that Mr. Kiselak has resided in the house from August 6, 1973, through the date of that report on October 30, 1991, and that he receives bills from his various creditors at that address. Mr. Brenner met this man at the informal hearing which was conducted by the Public Service Commission, who identified himself as James Kiselak. Mr. Kiselak drove to the informal hearing in the Mazda RX7, which then had a license plate. The records of the Dade County Auto Tag Agency which were admitted during the hearing show that the car was registered to James Kiselak at the address of 3987 NW 163rd Street in Opa Locka, Florida. After the testing of the meter in April of 1990, a current diversion investigator for Florida Power and Light Company, Diann Thomas, met with Patricia Kintz at the residence where the current diversion occurred; she was accompanied by Roger Sweeney, who also works for Florida Power and Light. At that time Ms. Kintz maintained that she was the owner of the house and its resident, that she was solely responsible for the payment of the electric bills and that she lived in the home alone. Based upon the records of Florida Power and Light which have shown Mr. Kiselak as the customer at the residence since before 1986, his presence at the home on January 23, 1991, his receipt of mail there, the credit report showing that the residence is his billing address for his creditors, and the presence of the Mazda automobile at the residence during the period from January 23 to February 14, 1991, I find that Mr. Kiselak has been residing at the home continuously, and has received the benefit of the current diversion based on meter tampering. For a substantial period of time, at least since October 11, 1988, Ms. Kintz has also occupied the house and received the benefit of the current diverted, although there is no proof that she is (a) responsible for causing the diversion or (b) subject to a cause of action by Florida Power and Light Company for the value of the current diverted. Ms. Diann Thomas has calculated a backbill for the current diverted at the Kiselak residence in a manner consonant with Rule 25-6.104, Florida Administrative Code, which permits a utility to bill the customer "on a reasonable estimate of the energy used" when there has been meter tampering. The type of tampering involved would be manipulable from day-to-day or month-to-month. The bill during the month of April 1989 was for 2,079 kwh of electricity. Usage registered that month was high compared to other months and it is reasonable for the utility to regard this as an unmanipulated month, and to use that consumption as the basis for projecting the proper amount to be billed. For the entire year of 1989, on average for residential customers of Florida Power and Light Company, April bills represented 6.81 percent of all billings for the calendar year. Therefore, the projected electric utilization for the entire year would be 30,529 kwh. Stated another way, the average percentage of use calculation would also show an average use of 69 kwh per day. After the diversion was detected and the new (i.e. third) meter was set on the residence, the use recorded for August and September of 1990 were 2,885 kwh and 3,333 kwh, which are consistent with the average percentage of use calculation based on the April 1989 actual usage. The projected usage for the bill delivered in March 1986 (the first full billing period after the meter had been placed on January 27, 1986), through April of 1990, after the diversion was discovered, is calculated in FPL exhibit 10. The actual bills paid for the Kiselak residence were deducted from the projected amounts in FPL exhibit 18. Based upon these calculations FPL is due $6,871.65 for the diverted electricity; a franchise charge, which would have been added to each monthly bill based upon kilowatt hours used of $284.69, is due, as is a city/county utility tax of $591.80, and a current diversion investigation charge of $375.53. The current diversion investigation charge is reasonable and is broken out on page 4 of FPL exhibit 10. The total due to FPL is therefore $8,087.67. The second issued raised is whether Florida Power and Light Company has properly declined to transfer service at the residence to the name of Ms. Kintz, without payment of the total amount due from Mr. Kiselak. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Mr. Kiselak has used the address as a mailing address for his credit cards, he has been observed frequenting the residence. Ms. Kintz has been also residing there since at least October 10, 1988, when her most current Florida drivers license was issued and she used the residence as her address on that license. Both Kiselak and Kintz continue to occupy the residence. While only Mr. Kiselak is indebted to Florida Power and Light, its tariffs, which have been approved by the Commission, do address this situation. According to tariff sheet 6.010, on service agreements, section 1.5: [Florida Power and Light] may refuse or discontinue service for failure to settle, in full, all prior indebtedness incurred by any customer for the same class of service at any one or more locations of such customer. [Florida Power and Light] may also refuse service for prior indebtedness by a previous customer provided that the current applicant or customer occupied the premises at the time the prior indebtedness occurred and the previous customer continues to occupy the premises. Both Ms. Kintz and Mr. Kiselak benefited from the service during the period current had been diverted, for while the account had been in Mr. Kiselak's name, Ms. Kintz resided there too. Florida Power and Light may refuse to provide service to Ms. Kintz at 3987 NW 163rd Street pursuant to the tariff sheet. The provisions of the tariff sheet are reasonable. It is specifically meant to cover situations such as this, though the more common situation would be one in which two college roommates occupy an apartment or residence, while the electric service is in the name of only one of them. After running up a substantial electric bill which they are unable to pay, the roommate not named on the FPL account may apply to have the service transferred to his (or her) name, and thereby attempt to avoid payment of the current bill, and avoid an interruption of service. Section 1.5 of tariff sheet 6.010 (FPL exhibit 13) is designed to prohibit such situations. It prohibits the transfer of the account into the name of Ms. Kintz here.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Public Service Commission finding that Mr. Kiselak is indebted to Florida Power and Light in the amount of $8,087.67, and that if this amount is not paid to Florida Power and Light within 10 days from the date of the Commission's final order, Florida Power and Light be authorized to cease providing electric service to that address. It is also recommended that Florida Power and Light not be required to transfer the account from the name of Mr. Kiselak to Ms. Kintz unless Mr. Kiselak first pays the full amount due, because Ms. Kintz occupied the premises at the time the current diversion occurred and still continues to occupy those premises. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of November 1991. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: K. Crandal McDougall, Esquire Florida Power and Light Company Legal Department Post Office Box 029100 Miami, Florida 33102-9100 Mr. James Kiselak 3987 Northwest 163rd Street Miami, Florida 33054 Ms. Pat Kintz 3987 Northwest 163rd Street Miami, Florida 33054 Kay Flynn, Chief PSC/Bureau of Records 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Susan Clark, Esquire Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Room 212 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Steve Tribble, Director of Records and Recording Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 David Swafford, Executive Director Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Rob Vandiver, General Counsel Public Service Commission Room 212 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent held a Florida license as a pilot for Tampa Bay. Shortly before midnight on 25 February 1982 Respondent boarded the M. T. JUPITER in Cut G, Tampa Bay, to pilot the ship to her destination at Florida Power Corporation's dock on Weedon Island. Two tugs, the BRADENTON and PALMETTO, were available and utilized from Cut G to the entrance to the Florida Power Corporation dock. The BRADENTON was made up on the port bow and the PALMETTO was made up on the starboard bow of the M. T. JUPITER. Around 4:10 a.m. on 26 February 1982 the M. T. JUPITER had made the last turn toward the Florida Power Corporation dock on Weedon Island and was proceeding westward at dead slow speed in the center of the entrance channel. The M. T. JUPITER was scheduled to moor port side to at the south dock at the Florida Power Corporation slip. Line handlers were standing by on the dock and the ship's crew had been called to cast the lines from the ship when so directed. The BRADENTON on the port bow was ordered to let go and stand by on the port quarter. Shortly after arriving at the port quarter the BRADENTON was ordered to stand by on the starboard quarter, but was never directed to put a line on the M. T. JUPITER. The PALMETTO remained fast to the starboard bow with her engines in the ahead position. Without having a line on the M. T. JUPITER, the BRADENTON could do nothing to reduce the speed or forward movement of the JUPITER. At 4:14 a.m. Respondent ordered all engines stopped on the M. T. JUPITER as the ship approached the slip. As the M. T. JUPITER entered the slip several people on the south dock waiting to take the lines from the M. T. JUPITER thought the M. T. JUPITER was moving too fast for a proper mooring. One of these witnesses equipped with a bullhorn yelled to the M. T. JUPITER a couple of times to slow down as he too thought the ship was moving too rapidly. At 4:20 a.m. Respondent ordered the PALMETTO to push M. T. JUPITER's bow to port and ordered all engines back full. As he did so the bow swung to starboard and at 4:21 a.m. Respondent ordered the engines stopped and the PALMETTO to let go and stand clear as the starboard bow was moving toward the north dock. As soon as the PALMETTO was clear, at 4:22 a.m., Respondent again ordered the engines back full. The M. T. JUPITER collided with the dock at 4:23 a.m. and Respondent ordered the engines stopped. The tugs secured lines to the M. T. JUPITER, pulled her away from the north pier which she had struck, and moored the M. T. JUPITER to the south slip. At the time of this incident the tide was high, there was no effective tidal current, and the wind was from the east-northeast at 10-15 knots. The effect of the wind, if any, was that to be expected from a following wind which would slightly increase the drift of the ship in a westerly direction. The south pier where the M. T. JUPITER was ordered to tie up is 1,100 feet long and the distance across the slip between the south and north piers is 250 feet. The north pier is shorter, just under 800 feet long. At the end of this slip Florida Power Corporation has its cooling water intakes at which are located six pumps with a combined rated capacity of 390,000 gallons per minute. During the time involved in this incident four of these pumps were on the line providing cooling water to the plant. These suction pumps are essential to the power plant's operation. Hence they may be expected to be on at all times. This fact is known to all Tampa Bay pilots and is an item included in the examination for licensure as a Tampa Bay pilot. No credible evidence was presented as to the actual current generated in this slip by these suction pumps. However, pilots have brought ships into this slip for many years and have generally experienced slight to no effect on the ship from these pumps. Respondent's testimony, that his first engine command following the 4:14 a.m. stop bell was slow astern, then half astern before the command for full astern was given at 4:20 a.m., is not supported by the bell book, the casualty report Respondent prepared immediately following the casualty (Exhibit 1), or by the statement he gave the U.S. Coast Guard investigator dated 26 February 1982 (Exhibit 11). Respondent did not know the speed the M. T. JUPITER made through the water with the engines ahead dead slow and no evidence was presented regarding this speed. Nor was any evidence presented regarding the speed imparted to the M. T. JUPITER by the tug PALMETTO on the starboard bow after the M. T. JUPITER's engines were stopped. The PALMETTO's captain testified that Respondent ordered him full ahead to push the bow of the M. T. JUPITER toward the south pier and that he responded to that command until told to get his tug out of the way before the M. T. JUPITER collided with the north dock. The lighting on the south pier of the docks provided good illumination in the area, resulting in good visibility for all witnesses.
