WWTP OPERATOR CERTIFICATION REVIEW

September 6, 2012
CLICK HERE SEE SECOND CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
Ms. Debbie Zuccala
State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Operator Certification
Division of Financial Assistance

RE : IGNORED E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS DEMONSTRATING INCOMPETENCY, INEFFICIENCY AND INEXCUSABLE NEGLECT OF DUTY

Dear Ms. Zuccala,
I received a letter from you dated August 2, 2012 , informing me among others that, " If you (me) have any question, please contact (you) Debbie Zuccala at (916) 341-5639 or dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov."
You gave me two options, first by phone and the second via e-mail. I chose the second option. So, on August 8, 2012, the day I received your dated August 2, 2012 letter, I sent you an e-mail telling you some clarifications and asking some questions. You did not give me a reply. So, on August 14, 2012. I sent you again the same e-mail. Again, you did not give me a reply. So, on August 15 ,2012, I sent you again the same e-mail for the third time. Again, you did not give me a reply. So, on August 16, 2012, I sent you again the same e-mail through registered mail and as per confirmation records on the Linda Vista Post Office showed the same was received by your office on August 20,2012. But as of today I have not received any response from you affirmative or otherwise.

Had you responded promptly, you could have asked and I could have explained to you why I was misled into filling up the "APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" form and not the " EXAMINATION APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR" and be granted a reconsideration.

I was separated from my work, bio-diesel plant operator, at New Leaf  Biofuel last July 24, 2012 and I devotedly searched for another source of livelihood, another job or career. Waste water treatment plant operations is one field I thought interesting, challenging and rewarding. I surfed the web and looked for waste water treatment plant operator jobs and I noticed that all job openings in that field called for a need to be certified before I could be considered for the position. This led me to your site and browsed therein for some information. After a few minutes of reading, I decided that I should take the examination, having thoughts in my mind that upon passing the examination, eventual certification would be the consequence thereof .Being unaware of the existence of a form specially intended for examination, after clicking web pages I came across a form titled "APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION". I filled it out, and again, honestly I am not aware of the existence of another form intended for examination. Actually, I thought that the the examination was an implied component of the certification application. This belief is bolstered by the existence of the form titled " WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION EXAMINATION SCHEDULE AND INFORMATION" which shows undoubtedly that certification and examination are combined together as one unit or entity. Moreover, may I invite your attention to the last page of the form titled " APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" sub titled "PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE", to wit:
  xxxxx PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE This information is requested by the STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, OFFICE OF OPERATOR CERTIFICATION. The authority for maintaining the requested information is the California Code of Regulations, Division 4, Chapter 14. All information requested on the application form must be provided by the applicant for examination. Failure to complete any portion of this form may result in delay or denial of eligibility for examination. The information provided is used to evaluate the applicant’s eligibility for examination for Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators. No transfers of this information are anticipated. For more information, or access to your records, contact the Office of Operator Certification, PO Box 944212, Sacramento, CA 94244-2120, Phone (916) 341-5819. xxxxxx

 May I cite the following sentences taken therein : 
xxxx" All information requested on the application form must be provided by the applicant for examination. Failure to complete any portion of this form may result in delay or denial of eligibility for examination. The information provided is used to evaluate the applicant’s eligibility for examination for Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators." xxxx

The first sentence requires that all information be provided by the applicant on the form for examination.This sentence clearly suggests that this form must be filled up for the purpose of examination. This implicitly manifests that this form for certification is one and the same form for examination. This gives credence that this form for certification is the same form for examination.

The second sentence warns that failure to complete any portion of this form may result in delay or denial of eligibility for examination This sentence obviously establishes the inseparability between the completeness of information in this form and the delay or denial of eligibility to take the examination. This instance conclusively conforms to my belief the examination and certification forms are one in the operator certification form.

 The third sentence consistently proves complete connection between the information contained in this form called certification and applicants' eligibility for examination for Waste Water Treatment Plant Operators. Again, examination and certification are taken together in a single form.

 Moreover,  had you responded to my e-mail timely I could have asked you and you could have explained why you erroneously considered a form titled "APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" which I have filed, be taken as an application for "WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION". These are two titles of forms which are distinctly different from each other. As you can see "PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" is obviously far from "PLANT OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION". If you were efficient and competent enough you should sent me an e-mail reply and guided me to correct deficiencies which you think I need to resolve so that I might be able to take the October 6, 2012 GRADE 1 WWTP OPERATOR EXAMINATION. Have you not committed a willful neglect of duty, as demonstrated in this case, I should have made remedial actions to avoid loss of time, money and opportunity. By your negligence. I am required to pay another application fee and wait for another examination schedule.

 In addition,  had you been punctual to respond to my e-mail I could have asked and you could have explained to me why a five-year Bachelor of Science in Management Engineering course whose records have been with my application could not merit a 6 educational point requirement for GRADE 1 WWTP OPERATOR EXAMINATION. As you could see from the educational records, I have studied subjects dealing with engineering mathematics, physics and chemistry.The course have subject studies on civil, mechanical ,electrical and chemical engineering reinforced with a great deal of business management subjects. Just in case, the 5-year BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING course credentials or records that I have sent to you together with my application did not merit a 6 point educational point, then, may I request that the same be returned to me with comments and annotations so that I may have a chance to seek a professional third party opinion about the matter.


Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Shell woes deter others from US Arctic

Sep 4th, 2012

by John Donovan.

FINANCIAL TIMES ARTICLE

By Guy Chazan in London and Ed Crooks in New York

Royal Dutch Shell's regulatory problems in the US Arctic, where it has faced repeated delays to an ambitious oil exploration campaign, are deterring other energy groups with licences in the US's northern oceans, according to one of the most active companies in the region.

FULL FT ARTICLE

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.

← Worlds leading source of information about Royal Dutch Shell

Shell charged over safety lapses in Pulau Bukom fire

Shell charged over

safety lapses

in Pulau Bukom fire

Sep 3rd, 2012

by John Donovan.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has filed a charge against Shell for lapses in workplace safety following investigations into a fire that broke out at the oil giant's Pulau Bukom refinery last September.
The fire was caused by lapses such as an accumulation of flammable vapours and static charges, MOM said.
The Ministry said Shell had allowed an open draining method to be used during a process called de-oiling, which is used in the maintenance of pipelines.
The method allowed flammable vapours to be released into the air, and the accumulation of such vapours created an atmosphere that would easily be ignited by any ignition source.
FULL ARTICLE (SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED)

Posted in: Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell Employee Safety.

← Plight of Niger Delta, by Dutch citizens

Lawsuit for Release of Key Arctic Offshore Safety Data

Aug 31st, 2012

by John Donovan.

Press Release

For Immediate Release:  August 30, 2012

Contact:  Kirsten Stade             (202) 265-7337      

Lawsuit for Release of Key Arctic Offshore Safety Data

Testing Results for New Blowout Capping System Sought

"Crucial" safety data on response to an offshore oil rig blowout in icy Arctic waters has not been released as required by law, according to a federal suit filed today by PEER.  The unreleased testing data would shed some light on whether there could be a repeat of the disastrous 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico from the first wells to be drilled this summer on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf.

Royal Dutch Shell has received permission to drill as many as five exploratory wells in Arctic waters –two in the Beaufort Sea and three in the Chukchi Sea — this summer. However, time is running out in the short weather window available to Shell before sea ice covers the region again.  The oil company is frantically scrambling to sink at least one well in coming weeks.

In a June 27, 2012 press release, the Bureau of Safety & Environmental Enforcement (BSSE is an arm of the Interior Department, formerly within the Minerals Management Service) declared that Shell had passed "comprehensive testing" on its "Arctic-ready capping stack system." BSSE described the capping system as a "key piece of safety equipment" needed to prevent a recurrence of the BP debacle in the Gulf and that its "crucial" tests were "leaving nothing to chance."

Following the BSSE press release, Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska professor and PEER board member who is an expert in oil spill response, requested the actual Shell cap test data under the Freedom of Information Act.  BSSE has not produced the data within the statutory time limits and today PEER, representing Professor Steiner, filed a lawsuit to compel release of the testing results.

"The Department of Interior and Shell say that the capping stack tests were rigorous and proved the equipment will work to stop a wellhead blowout. But the public deserves to see the test results to judge whether the testing was indeed rigorous, and whether the capping stack actually works.  That DOI is delaying release of the results, and Shell is poised to begin drilling its first Arctic Ocean wells within days, underscores the urgency here.  This is why we needed to sue to obtain the results," Steiner said.

This February, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled "Interior Has Strengthened Its Oversight of Subsea Well Containment, but Should Improve Its Documentation." The report found that Interior had no definitive process for insuring both the availability and the reliability of blowout prevention and response equipment. The report also stressed the "unique risks" of Arctic offshore drilling, including floating ice, scouring ice (shearing along the ocean floor) and lack of any emergency infrastructure in the frigid, remote seas.

"Given its track record, Interior cannot just say 'Trust us, we have this covered,' stated PEER Staff Counsel Kathryn Douglass, who filed the legal action in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. "Complete transparency on this paramount issue is essential for public confidence that the federal government is not again accommodating oil companies at the expense of protecting irreplaceable public resources."

PEER has also urged that Interior require redundant back-up systems as the Canadians do to prevent the nightmare scenario of a runaway spill under impenetrable sea ice from a blowout at the end of the short drilling season. Interior has rejected multiple response requirements, putting all of its proverbial eggs in the single capping stack system now being towed to the Arctic.

Read the PEER Complaint

http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/08_30_12_PEER_Complaint_media.pdf

Read the BSSE Press Release

http://bsee.gov/BSEE-Newsroom/Press-Releases/2012/Press6272012.aspx

Read the GAO Report

http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/08_30_12_GAO_12.pdf

Read PEER's press release June 2010

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1358

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Corporate Governance, Environment, GoogleNews, Gulf of Mexico, Litigation, Oil, Oil Spill, Pollution, Professor Richard Steiner, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Deepwater Horizon ·Litigation · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Shell Shuts-In Nigeria Pipeline To Nembe Creek Flow Station

Shell says Arctic drilling could begin next week in Chukchi Sea →

Shell’s Enemy No. 1

Aug 23rd, 2012

by John Donovan.

Feature about John Donovan in TV programme – European Journal – broadcast in English language across Europe in May 2012

European Journal is a 30 minute magazine on DW that delivers the inside take — reports on important political, economic and cultural developments in the EU with a strong focus on the European integration process. European Journal features issues that move Europeans and shows Europeans on the move.

Brief extract from narration by Nina Haase

And Shell’s Enemy No 1; Meet the man who’s on a vendetta

Its a long time ago that little David allegedly brought down giant Goliath with no more that a sling and a stone.

Modern heroes like John Donovan from the UK use modern tools of course when they fight big enemies.

Donovan owns a website that publishes information on multinational oil giant Shell with the help of moles inside the company and that has made him a real thorn in the side of the group.

Donovan’s revelations have cost Shell billions…

Posted in: Business Principles, Corporate Governance, Environment, GoogleNews, John Donovan, Nigeria, Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Russia, Sakhalin II, Shell, Shell Spying.

← The Kulluk Leaves Dutch Harbor for the Beaufort Sea

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

DILG Sec. Jesse Robredo...mahal ka namin...

Hindi Kita Malilimutan – Basil Valdez Song Lyrics

Pagpupugay...pakikidalamhati...pagkilala,,,,at pagtanaw ng taos pusong utang na loob

sa kabutihan at kadakilaan ng isang butihing lingkod bayan. Akin pong payak na alay

para sa inyong paglisan ay dalangin na tamasahin ninyo ang walang hanggang

kaligayahan at kapayapaan sa piling ng Poong Maykapal. Marapatin pong handugan

ko kayo ng isang awitin mula kay Basil Valdez na tuloy tuloy kong papailang langin sa

internet sa loob ng 40 araw mula sa aking computer. Maraming salamat po sa inyong

kabutihan. Hindi ka namin malilimutan..Sec. Jesse Robredo.....

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

AUGUST 16, 2012 REGISTERED MAIL

CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT(1)

Troubled Arctic Challenger cited for small illegal discharges

Troubled Arctic Challenger cited 

for small illegal discharges

Aug 14th, 2012

by John Donovan.

By Kim MurphyAugust 13, 2012, 6:49 p.m.

SEATTLE — The containment vessel designed to capture oil in the event of a spill during exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska has itself been responsible for four minor illegal fluid discharges during the last three weeks, the Coast Guard confirmed Monday.

The discharges all involved hydraulic fluid and were generally limited to about a quart each time, all of which was contained and cleaned up. The fine was just $250. But the discharges signal Shell Exploration'scontinuing problems with the vessel, the Arctic Challenger, whose trouble-plagued retrofit in Bellingham, Wash., has delayed the launch of the first major offshore oil drilling in the U.S. Arctic in 20 years.

"They're small spills," Coast Guard spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Jamie Frederick said. "I wouldn't say that a spill in the yard is necessarily uncommon. But I also wouldn't say that they happen all the time. It's common that if you spill something the first time, you get a warning, and at some point the warning turns to a fine, and that's what you saw here."

The retrofitting is being undertaken by Superior Energy Marine Technical Services, under contract to Shell.

Though the bulk of Shell's drilling fleet has long since set sail for Alaska, the Arctic Challenger remains mired in port as workers hurry to try to complete needed fixes before the vessel can be certified by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Bureau of Shipping.

The company's hoped-for target of finishing the reconstruction by Aug. 15 now has been pushed back to Aug. 30, according to sources familiar with the work. Coast Guard officials said several major systems still remain to be completed before certification can occur.

"At the end of the day, the question is: Is the Arctic Challenger any closer to obtaining a certificate of inspection? The only way to accurately reflect that is through completion of major systems and major subsystems. And as of this moment, I don't think we've made any progress since last Monday," Coast Guard spokesman Cmdr. C.T. O'Neil told the Los Angeles Times.

As of last week, the Coast Guard said about 400 inspection and plan review items remained to be satisfied, all relating to the design, construction and installation of safety, structural, mooring and machinery systems.

Frederick said all four fluid discharges were self-reported by Superior Energy. They included a spill of a quart of hydraulic fluid due to a ruptured hydraulic line on July 24, for which the company received a warning; another mechanical leak of a quart of hydraulic fluid on Aug. 4, for which another warning was issued; a leak of an additional quart on Aug. 6 due to "equipment failure," for which the company was fined $250; a discharge of five gallons of fuel on Aug. 7 from a small skiff that is a support vessel to the Arctic Challenger.

Any additional spills would be assessed a civil penalty, Frederick said.

A source familiar with the construction said Shell inspectors were alarmed when they saw evidence of a discharge near the Arctic Challenger.

"When a Shell corporate observer noticed a sheen on the water and inquired with a Superior Energy manager, he was met with resistance and told it was none of his business and to butt out," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the construction. "He insisted it was his business since this project has Shell's name all over it.… There was quite a commotion on the dock."

Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said he did not have any information on the accidental releases.

"Having said that, a discharge — no matter how small — is unacceptable. We are pleased with the progress being made and look forward to sea trials in the days ahead," Smith said in an email to The Times.

With more than $4 billion invested in the long-delayed Arctic drilling program, Shell has had to scale back its ambitions for the summer drilling season and now expects to drill only about two wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Monday he had received no concrete proposal from the company to extend the drilling cutoff deadline — put in place to wind up operations and allow time for any needed cleanup before the onset of winter ice. The deadline is currently set for late September in the Chukchi Sea and late October in the Beaufort Sea.

"It's necessary for Shell to be able to demonstrate that they have met the regulatory requirements that we have put in place," Salazar said at a news conference in Anchorage. "If they are not met, then there will not be a Shell exploration effort that will take place this year."

kim.murphy@latimes.com

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

ARTICLE

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Environment, Los Angeles Times, Oil, Oil Spill, Pollution,Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea 

August 15, 2012 third e-mail

antonio jr. Buensuceso antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com	Aug 15
to dzuccala

August 15, 2012

Dear Ms. Debbie Zuccala,

Please be informed that I am sending  this e-mail to you

for the third time. Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail to

let me know that the information and question I posted therein

have come to your knowledge and attention.

I will appreciate your kind and early response  on this matter.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: antonio jr. Buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:25 AM
Subject: Fwd: WWTP Grade 1 OPERATOR EXAMINATION APPLICATION
To: dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov, antonio buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>


August 14,  2012

Dear Ms. Debbie Zuccala,

I am sending again this  e-mail  from me  dated  August 8, 2012 .

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail to let me know  that the

information and question I posted therein  have come to  your

knowledge and attention.

I will appreciate your prompt response to this matter.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Antonio L. Buensuceso

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: antonio jr. Buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:19 AM
Subject: WWTP Grade 1 OPERATOR EXAMINATION APPLICATION
To: dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov, antonio buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>


August   8,  2012

Ms. Debbie Zuccala

Office of Operator Certification

Division of Financial Assistance

Dear  Ms. Debbie Zucalla,

Re: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR -IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION

I received your letter dated August 2, 2012 informing me  the following: 

1.   Acknowledgment of the receipt of my application and fees for Waste Water Treatment Plant

      Operator-in-Training (OIT)  Certification.

2.   Review of my application indicates that I am not currently employed in operations  at a   

      municipal wastewater treatment plant  (WWTP)

3.   To be eligible for an (OIT) Certificate, a person must be employed  in the day-to-day

      operations of a WWTP  overseen by Public Utilities Commission

4.   Therefore, an (OIT) Certification  cannot be issued in my favor.

As I looked over the duplicate copy application form that I have submitted to you,

I noticed  that I have filled up the form titled "APPLICATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT 

PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION"  indicating a fee of  $95 for GRADE 1 Level  where,

I should have filled up  the form titled "EXAMINATION APPLICATION FOR WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR " with a lower fee of  $80 .

My intention is to take the GRADE 1 Level WWTP Operator Exam in October  6,  2012,

and be certified  after passing the examination. Am I qualified to take this examination ?

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.