CASE AGAINST THE OFFICE OF OPERATOR CERTIFICATION

CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT OF FACTS

JULY  16, 2012........Mailed application for  WWTP operator  examination/
                                 certification together with the CREDENTIALS

JULY  24, 2012...... a ).Check payment ($95) payable to STATE WATER
                                     RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
                                     drawn against my checking account.
                                b) I was separated from employment.
                                c) Commendations and Recommendation received from   
                                    Mr. Tyler Case,  and Ms. Portia Smith,
                                     OWNERS, NEW LEAF BIOFUEL

AUGUST 2, 2012....Ms  Debbie Zuccala wrote and sent me through
                                 regular mail a  letter of  DENIAL of my operator
                                 examination/certification application

AUGUST 8, 2012... a) I received the DENIAL letter on my operator examination/
                                    certification application sent  by Ms Debbie Zuccala
                                    through regular mail.
                                 b) I sent a reply to Ms Debbie Zuccala telling clarifications
                                    and posting some questions through E-MAIL.

AUGUST 14, 2012..resent E-MAIL to Ms. Debbie Zuccala dated August 8. 2012.

AUGUST 15, 2012..WAITED.. I got no reply.
                                 a) resent E-MAIL to Ms. Debbie Zuccal dated August 8, 2012.

AUGUST 16, 2012.. WAITED.. I got no reply. a) resent E-MAIL to
                                   Ms. Debbie Zuccala through USPS certified mail.
                                   SEE RECEIPT HERE

AUGUST 20, 2012..Linda Vista Post Office  confirmed "her" office received
                                   the certified mail on this date.

AUGUST 29, 2012..Certain Ms. Anna Hernandez,wrote a DENIAL LETTER
                                 for  a WWTP  Operator Certification examination . She
                                 processed my application though my application was
                                deficient being a form for WWTP Operator Certification.
                                Deficient applications shall not processed as per regulation.
                                Besides she should have seek an endorsement from
                                Ms. Debbie Zuccala so that issues and questions I posted for
                                Ms Debbie Zuccala could be addressed accordingly.
                                I waited for Ms. Debbie Zuccala to  respond.
        
SEPTEMBER  6, 2012..WAITED.. I got no reply
                               a)I wrote a letter to Ms. Debbie Zuccala with subject,
                               " IGNORED E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS 
                                 DEMONSTRATING INCOMPETENCY, 
                                 INEFFICIENCY AND  INEXCUSABLE 
                                 NEGLECT OF DUTY"    by certified mail.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2012...WAITED..I got no reply
                               Certified mail receipt HERE for letter sent to
                                Ms. Debbie Zuccala dated September 6, 2012

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012...WAITED..I got no reply from Ms. Debbie Zuccala
                               but
                               a)certain  Ms. Christine Gordon responded to the letter not 
                                  addressed to her, first count of discourtesy.
                               b)sent e-mail reply to certain Ms. Christine Gordon

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012...Certain Christine Gordon  replied but just asking for a 
                               phone to contact me. Why asked for a phone to contact
                              me , where in my CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM,
                              I have filled in NONE for my telephone number?
                             Why not communicate with me through  my active e-mail address?

SEPTEMBER 14, 2012...Ms. Debbie Zuccala  replied but just asked for a phone to
                             contact me with. Again, why asked for a phone number, where she
                             already have my active e-mail address ? She knew well that I have
                             no phone  to contact me with as this information was clearly filled up
                             in my CERTIFICATION APPLICATION.
        
SEPTEMBER  15, 2012...sent E-MAIL response  to Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2012.. WAITED..I got no reply 
                             a) Sent E-MAIL to Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2012...WAITED..I got no reply

SEPTEMBER 24, 2012... a) Received E-MAIL from  certain Ms. Christine Gordon,
                              (second count of discourtesy, replying to e-mail not  addressed to her)
                              claiming to be Ms. Debbie Zuccala's manager.
                          b) Received E-MAIL from  certain Mr. Wes Wilkinson.
                              (first count of discourtesy, replying to e-mail not addresed to him)
                               claiming to be Ms. Debbie Zuccala's manager.                  
                              
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012.. a) Sent reply to certain  Ms. Christine Gordon
                                        b) Sent reply to certain  Mr. Wes Wilkinson.

OCTOBER  1, 2012 ....Sent E-MAIL to    Ms. Debbie Zuccala with subject
                              "TWO PERSONS CLAIMING TO  BE YOUR MANAGER...
                               VERY CONFUSING"

OCTOBER  4, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
                    a)  Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL to Ms. Debbie Zuccala
                    b)  Received  AUTOMATIC reply  from Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

OCTOBER  10, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
                     a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the THIRD TIME for
                         Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

OCTOBER  15, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
                     a)Re sent  October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the FOURTH TIME for
                        Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

OCTOBER  17, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
                     a)Re sent  October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the FIFTH  TIME for
                        Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

OCTOBER  22, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
                     a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the SIXTH  TIME for
                         Ms. Debbie Zuccala.
                     b) Received  a TWENTY WORDED reply from certain
                         Ms. Christine Gordon

OCTOBER  23, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
                     a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL  for the SEVENTH TIME for
                         Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

OCTOBER  28, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
                     a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the EIGHT TIME for
                         Ms. Debbie Zuccala

NOVEMBER  5, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
                       a) Re sent  October 1, 2012 E-MAIL for the NINTH TIME for
                           Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

NOVEMBER 12, 2012..WAITED..I got no reply
                        a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL  for the TENTH TIME for
                            Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

DECEMBER 12, 2012....WAITED...I got no reply
                      a) Re sent  October 1, 2012 E-MAIL through CERTIFIED MAIL.for
                          Ms. Debbie Zuccala. See CM receipt here.

JANUARY 12, 2013......WAITED....I got no reply
                    a) Re sent October 1, 2012 E-MAIL through CERTIFIED MAIL with
                        RESTRICTED DELIVERY  REQUIREMENT for
                        Ms. Debbie Zuccala.

                     b)Please see USPS receipts here.

January  22, 2013....Waited ....I got no reply                    a) I requested for a  DELIVERY CONFIRMATION of the                        letter dated January 12, 2013Linda Vista Post Office for                         Ms. Debbie Zuccala. March 12, 2013...  I waited until this date.  I got no reply.                                      a) I sent certified mail to the Office of Operator Certification                        with title "REQUEST FOR RESPONSE" and SUBJECT                       " TWO PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE YOUR                          (Ms. Debbie Zuccala) MANAGER.... VERY CONFUSING                         With copies furnished to Ms. Debbie Zuccala                          Ms. Christine Gordon and  Mr. Wes Wilkinson  March 14. 2013...The certified mail  sent on March 12, 2013 was                           received. on this date.See the mail return card here.

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

BIODIESEL STUDIES ...A research material

WHITE PAPER Cold Flow Properties of Blends of Tallow and Soybean Oil-based Biodiesel As Presented by Dr. Jon Van Gerpen, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho Introduction Biodiesel is an alternative diesel fuel produced from vegetable oils and animal fats.                                              In the United States, most biodiesel is produced from soybean oil. However, due to  the dramatic increase in soybean oil prices since 2006, soybean oil-based biodiesel prices have risen substantially, and during 2008, soy-based biodiesel has typically traded at a substantial premium to petroleum diesel. Other feedstocks such as other vegetable oils (i.e. palm, cottonseed, peanut, corn, canola, mustard seed, and jatropha oils), tallow (inedible beef fat), choice white  grease (inedible pig fat), used cooking oils, and poultry fat can also be used to make  high-quality biodiesel. Animal fats and used cooking oil feedstocks have traditionally  been lower cost than soybean oil. Given the price advantage of such feedstocks  compared to soy oil, there is now considerable interest in using these lower cost oils  and fats to reduce biodiesel production costs. Unfortunately, animal fats and used  cooking oils are higher in saturated fats, and therefore fuels produced from these  materials will tend to crystallize at higher temperatures. This may make higher  biodiesel blends from these feedstocks unacceptable in regions with cold climates  or during colder months of the year. It has been proposed that blending biodiesel  produced from these saturated feedstocks with soybean oil-based biodiesel could  produce a type of biodiesel with cold temperature properties that would be more  acceptable in colder climates. At the request of Crimson Renewable Energy LP  ("Crimson"), the University of Idaho has tested samples of biodiesel made  from  soybean oil and tallow biodiesel for their cold weather properties. Additionally,  various blend levels of soybean oil biodiesel mixed with tallow biodiesel were  tested for their cold weather properties. The results of these tests are provided in this research summary. Methodology Biodiesel was prepared from samples of biodiesel from soybean oil and tallow (i.e. inedible beef fat). The tallow (a 6% FFA grade) used to produce the biodiesel  for this testing were provided by Crimson and the soybean oil was a food  grade oil purchased at a local grocery store. Biodiesel fuels from each of the feedstocks were made by mixing the oil with    a 6:1 molar ratio of methanol to oil and with 0.5% sodium methylate as a catalyst. The sodium methylate was dissolved in the methanol before adding to the oil.  The process was conducted in two steps with 80% of the methanol/catalyst added  to the oil in the first step. The mixture was stirred for 1 hour at 140°F, and then the  glycerin was allowed to settle in a separatory funnel. The glycerin was removed and  the remaining 20% of the methanol/catalyst solution was added. The mixture was  again stirred for 1 hour at 140°F and any remaining glycerin was settled out and removed. The fuel was then water-washed to remove methanol, soap, catalyst, and free glycerin. The washed fuel was dried by heating to 230°F for 15 minutes. The final  fuel samples were analyzed for free and total glycerin and found to be in compliance  with ASTM D6751, the specification for biodiesel. Samples of B100 and B20 were prepared and the cold flow properties were measured.  The biodiesel fuels that were tested included 100% soybean oil and tallow-based  biodiesels as well as soybean oil-based biodiesel blended with tallow-based biodiesel  in various ratios. The blend ratios tested were 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%  tallow-based biodiesel with the remainder being soybean-oil based biodiesel. The  conventional  diesel used in the B20 biodiesel blends was a standard # 2 diesel obtained  from a service station in Idaho. The cloud point (CP), pour point (PP), and cold filter  plugging point (CFPP) were measured twice and the numbers were averaged. The CP  and PP data were measured in the biodiesel laboratory at the University of Idaho  using the ASTM D2500 and ASTM D97 test methods respectively. The CFPP data were  measured by Magellan Midstream Partners of Kansas City, Kansas. Measuring Cold Weather Performance Cold weather performance is measured by 3 parameters: cloud point, pour point, and  cold filter plug point. The cloud point refers to the temperature at which  small wax  crystals in diesel or biowax in biodiesel fuels form and are first visually observed  as the fuel cools. The accumulation of solidified waxes will thicken the fuel and can  reach the point where fuel filters and injectors in engines become clogged. The  temperature at which this happens is known as the cold filter plug point. The pour  point is lowest temperature at which the fuel will pour or flow; it is a rough  indication of the lowest temperature at which fuel is readily pumpable. It should be  noted that CFPP for biodiesel blends is the measurement used within the biodiesel industry globally to provide a good indicator of the lowest operability temperature for  diesel engines. Soybean Oil-Tallow Biodiesel Blends For B100 biodiesel made from varying proportions of tallow versus soybean oil-based biodiesel, the cloud point, pour point and cold filter plugging point temperatures follow similar trends and the data points for the intermediate blend levels are roughly linear  between the temperatures for the 100% tallow and 100% soybean oil-based biodiesels. Table 1 shows the cold flow data for B20 produced by mixing 80% conventional  petroleum-based diesel fuel with 20% biodiesel from differing blend ratios of tallow  and soybean-based biodiesel. Because the biodiesel only composes 20% of the  mixture, the effect of changing the relative amounts of tallow biodiesel and soybean  biodiesel is much less than effects for B100 biodiesel. Table 1. Cold Flow Properties of B20 with biodiesel made from blends of  soybean oil and tallow-based biodiese Diesel % % Tallow % Soy CP (°F) PP (°F) CFPP (°F) 80 0 20 15.6 .3 -0.4 80 4 16 12.9 3.2 4.1 80 8 12 15.6 7.5 8.6 80 12 8 15.4 9.5 9.5 80 16 4 13.6 10.8 14.9 80 20 0 19.4 13.3 12.2 For petroleum diesel fuel: CP= -1.8°F (-18.8°C), PP=-19.1°F (-28.4°C), and CFPP=-0.4°F (-18°C) These results from Table 1 are plotted in Figure 1. The cloud point of the B20  biodiesel fuel seems to show little effect as the ratio between the tallow and  soybean oil-based biodiesel is varied; the cloud point varied less than 10 degrees  between the extremes of using 100% tallow-based biodiesel or 100% soybean  oil-based biodiesel for the biodiesel portion of the B20 fuel. Also the cloud point  did not necessarily change in a linear fashion as the proportion of tallow-based  biodiesel changed. For instance, the B20 fuel with the biodiesel portion comprised  of 80% tallow / 20% soybean oil-based biodiesel showed a slightly lower cloud  point than the B20 fuel with the biodiesel portion comprised of 40%  tallow / 60% soybean oil-based biodiesel. The pour point (PP) and cold filter plug point (CFPP) did show a roughly linear  effect with 12.6°F to 14.4°F (7 to 8°C) of variation between the extremes.  That said, the impact on the B20 PP and CFPP of going from 100% soybean  oil-based biodiesel for the biodiesel portion to a 50%/50% soy-tallow biodiesel  blend for the biodiesel portion was relatively modest causing an increase of approximately 8°F in PP and CFPP in the B20 fuel. Figure 1. Cold Flow Properties of B20 with biodiesel made from blends of  soybean oil and tallow-based biodiesel For petroleum diesel fuel: CP= -1.8°F (-18.8°C), PP=-19.1°F (-28.4°C), and CFPP=-0.4°F (-18°C) It should be noted that the CFPP temperature for a given biodiesel blend can be  below the pour point temperature. This is a common observation with biodiesel fuels.  While it might initially seem impossible that the fuel could still flow through a filter  at a temperature below its pour point, it should be noted that the test conditions  are very different for the two procedures. First, when the pour point test is  conducted, the temperature is lowered in increments of 5.4°F (3°C) until a point is reached where the fuel no longer pours from a vessel. Then, 5.4°F (3°C) is added  to this temperature to identify the lowest temperature at which the fuel will pour.  Because of the way the pour point (PP) is defined, it is even possible for a fuel that  behaves similar to a pure compound, like biodiesel, to have a pour point that is  above the cloud point. This was not observed in the tests described here. The pour point technique means the actual freezing temperature of the fuel could  be between 5.4°F (3°C) and 10.8°F (6°C) below the measured pour point. Also, the  rate at which the fuel is cooled can affect the observed PP and CFPP temperatures. Conclusions The data presented in this report indicate that blending biodiesel made from tallow  (inedible beef fat) with soybean oil-based biodiesel can improve the low temperature  properties of the combined biodiesel. For B100 the effect is approximately linear  between the values for the pure methyl esters. The effect of changing the relative  amounts of tallow-based biodiesel versus soybean oil-based biodiesel is much  less for B20 biodiesel fuels than the effects for B100 biodiesel. This is due to the simple fact that in a B20 biodiesel fuel the biodiesel only composes 20% of the  mixture and thus, the impact on B20 cold weather performance from changing  the type of biodiesel used is greatly reduced compared to the impact on the  cold weather performance of B100. Blending tallow-based biodiesel with soybean oil-based biodiesel did not always  have a linear effect on the cloud point of B20. However, roughly linear reductions  in the pour point and the cold filter plugging point (CFPP) were recorded as the  portions of tallow versus soybean oil-based biodiesel were adjusted. Since the CFPP  is intended to provide an indicator of the lowest operability temperature for engines,  it appears that blending tallow biodiesel with soybean biodiesel should allow  the fuel to be used at lower temperatures. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Scott Burn, Joe Thompson, and Paul Wang for their  assistance in conducting the experiments that produced the data provided in this report. ABOUT US CONTACT US HOME © 2007-2011 Crimson Renewable Energy, L.P. All rights reserved. website design by h2oh marketing.