Home > Uncategorized > The Great Dupont Train-RCRA

The Great Dupont Train-RCRA

Decade of coverup – Revolving Door at EPA – Local Politics – DEP Ethical lapse

You have my commitment that the Environmental Protection Agency will ensure that Dupont will fulfill its RCRA obligations for this facility. ~~~ Judith Enck, EPA Region 2 Administrator – October 2010 letter

I apologize, but this must be a lengthy post because I must reprint the full text of an important document that I don’t have a link to. Who knows, there may be an intrepid reporter, lawyer, or regulator out there! (HINT!)

So let me just catch up on what’s gone down since last week’s Community rally and EPA public hearing.

First, a few glimmers of hope and good news:

Let’s hope that they focus on Dupont’s ecological assessment; the scope and extent of the cleanup; and document compensable natural resource damages.

I raised the requirement to consult with USFWS and flagged some ecological issues at the EPA informal October 19, 2010 presentation of the Dupont Acid Brook Delta Plan. So, it really pissed me off that between then and the January 5, 2012 formal public hearing, EPA staff failed to get back to me or to formally consult with US FWS.

The whole purpose of the informal hearings is to flag issues and for staff to respond to them – it simply boggles the mind that EPA staff failed to respond, especially given EPA Region 2 RA Judy Enck’s personal pledge to me and the Pompton Lakes community.

We tweeted the letter last week, but see the Record’s story: Superfund designation sought for Pompton Lakes pollution sites (gee, do you think they could put polluter Dupont’s name in the headline?)

  • Last week, more than 40 residents braved the cold to protest the Dupont plan, present a petition with over 7,000 signatures, and urge EPA to designate the Dupont site a national priority under the Superfund program. Ramped up pressure and protest can only help.

Now for the bad news.

1) Vapor Intrusion coverup: A decade long  failure to warn and take action

At the [Jan 5, 2012] Dupont [RCRA] public hearing, one of the points I made (which I wrote about in F is for Fraud) was to question who knew what when on the chronology of the vapor intrusion issue and ask why residents were not warned about the poisoning and risks in their own homes.

If people knew, they could take action to prevent exposure to chemicals in their home.

I simply find it difficult to believe that one of the most scientifically and legally sophisticated chemical corporations in the world didn’t understand the vapor problem until the 2008 disclosure and that the timing of the 2008 disclosure had nothing to do with a legal liability settlement deal reached to end litigation.

After the public hearing (I assume in response to my testimony on this issue), someone sent me a trove of DEP emails regarding behind the scenes negotiations with Dupont and EPA (more to follow on that), including the below timeline (probably prepared as a CYA by NJ DEP).

This closed door process would never had happened if the Dupont site was cleaned up under Superfund, as should have happened back in 1982, when EPA conducted an HRS scoring and the site qualified based on risks.

Under Superfund, residents would have a seat at the table and be involved in all the back room secret discussions between Dupont, NJ DEP and EPA listed below – which began over 10 years ago!

Additionally, I was not aware that the groundwater plume that is the source of the vapor intrusion was a “CEA” – a loophole in cleanup requirements known as a groundwater “Classification Exception Area” – under NJ DEP cleanup regulations.

Without going into all the technical details here, this raises significant regulatory and legal issues, if for no other reason that federal EPA RCRA regulations do not recognize a NJ State CEA and that Dupont was required to certify the safety of that CEA. How could EPA have signed off on RCRA compliance and certified the Dupont site under RCRA?

As is obvious from this timeline, Dupont, NJ DEP and EPA regulators were in no hurry and failed to notify homeowners about risks.

These failures occurred despite the fact that vapor intrusion is a direct contact exposure and a public health risk that equalifies as an “immediate environmental concern” (IEC) under NJ DEP regulations. How did Dupont certify that the CEA was in compliance? How did DEP accept this certification?

Vapor intrusion also is  of direct relevance to US EPA Assessment of Environmental Indicators – groundwater and human exposure under control – (CA725 and CA750 – see below) EPA must certify to Congress pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 .

Du Pont Pompton Lake Works Site
TIMELINE
Vapor Intrusion Pathway
Trenton meeting with DuPont officials (mentioned VI pathway must be addressed)         03-30-01
USEPA Assessment of Environmental Indicators (CA725 and CA750)                         12-20-01
John Boyer’s review of South Plant Region RIR (requires VI assessment on-site)           03-13-03
Teleconference with DuPont re: meeting next week & EI Determination of VI Pathway  05-23-03
DuPont provides letter “Indoor Air Evaluation for Four DuPont NJ Sites”                      05-30-03
Diane Groth’s review of Environmental Indicators Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion            08-27-03
John Boyer’s review of Environmental Indicators Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion              09-11-03
Teleconference with DuPont, consultant, re: Vapor Intrusion assessment                                    09-17-03
NJDEP Review of “Initial Indoor Air Assessment”                                                                    09-19-03
John Boyer’s review of Proposed GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination            11-07-03
John Boyer’s email to Barry Tornick (USEPA) on GW Investigation for EI                    11-14-03
DuPont Progress Update on VI Investigation for EI Determination                                 12-12-03
John Boyer’s review of “Update on GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination         02-03-04
NJDEP’s review of “Update on GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination               02-09-04
Diane Groth’s email regarding basis for TCE/PCE screening levels for VI                      02-10-04
John Boyer’s review of “Update on GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination         05-13-04
John Boyer’s review of Summary of GW/SG Results for RCRA EI Deter (VI)              05-04-05
John Boyer’s review of Response to Comments Letter (VI)                                           07-11-05
Trenton meeting re: indoor air sampling requirements                                                     02-15-06
John Boyer’s review of Vapor Intrusion Investigation Work Plan                                               02-21-06
Response of VI Investigation Workplan Response                                                                     05-03-06
Trenton meeting with EPA, DuPont re: indoor air sampling                                             01-31-07
Development of Anticipated VI Screening Levels                                                                      02-09-07
John Boyer’s Review of Vapor Intrusion Investigation & Remedial Action Work Plan    07-20-07
DuPont’s 3rd Quarter 2007 Progress Report (mentions various email correspondence)   11-31-07
Trenton meeting with Barry Tornick (EPA)                                                                                12-06-07
DuPont’s Response to NJDEP comments on VI Investigation & RA Work Plan                        01-15-08
John Boyer’s review of DuPont’s response to NJDEP comments on VII & RAWP       01-16-08
NJDEP’s Approval of VI Investigation & RA Work Plan                                                          01-16-08
DuPont’s 4th Quarter 2007 Progress Report (mentions various email correspondence)  01-31-08
Teleconference re: vapor intrusion sampling implementation                                            02-14-08
Teleconference re: vapor intrusion sampling implementation                                            03-06-08
Site visit re: sub-slab soil gas sampling at residential house                                              03-20-08
DuPont’s Proposed Sub-Slab Vapor Sample Collection Procedures for Building SSDS 04-15-0Du Pont Pompton Lake Works Site

Dupont Pompton Lakes Site

TIMELINE

Vapor Intrusion Pathway

Trenton meeting with DuPont officials (mentioned VI pathway must be addressed) 03-30-01

USEPA Assessment of Environmental Indicators (CA725 and CA750) 12-20-01

John Boyer’s review of South Plant Region RIR (requires VI assessment on-site) 03-13-03

Teleconference with DuPont re: meeting next week & EI Determination of VI Pathway 05-23-03

DuPont provides letter “Indoor Air Evaluation for Four DuPont NJ Sites” 05-30-03

Diane Groth’s review of Environmental Indicators Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion 08-27-03

John Boyer’s review of Environmental Indicators Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion 09-11-03

Teleconference with DuPont, consultant, re: Vapor Intrusion assessment 09-17-03

NJDEP Review of  “Initial Indoor Air Assessment”   09-19-03

John Boyer’s review of Proposed GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination 11-07-03

John Boyer’s email to Barry Tornick (USEPA) on GW Investigation for EI  11-14-03

DuPont Progress Update on VI Investigation for EI Determination12-12-03

John Boyer’ss review of  “Update on GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination” 02-03-04

NJDEP’s review of Update on GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination 02-09-04

Diane Groth’s email regarding basis for TCE/PCE screening levels for VI  02-10-04

John Boyer’s review of Update on GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination  05-13-04

John Boyer’s review of Summary of GW/SG Results for RCRA EI Deter (VI) 05-04-05

John Boyer’s review of Response to Comments Letter (VI)  07-11-05

Trenton meeting re: indoor air sampling requirements   02-15-06

John Boyer’s review of Vapor Intrusion Investigation Work Plan   02-21-06

Response of VI Investigation Workplan Response   05-03-06

Trenton meeting with EPA, DuPont re: indoor air sampling  01-31-07

Development of Anticipated VI Screening Levels    02-09-07

John Boyer’s Review of Vapor Intrusion Investigation & Remedial Action Work Plan 07-20-07

DuPont’s 3rd Quarter 2007 Progress Report (mentions various email correspondence) 11-31-07

Trenton meeting with Barry Tornick (EPA)   12-06-07

DuPont’s Response to NJDEP comments on VI Investigation & RA Work Plan  01-15-08

John Boyer’s review of DuPont’s response to NJDEP comments on VII & RAWP  01-16-08

NJDEP’s Approval of VI Investigation & RA Work Plan  01-16-08

DuPont’s 4th Quarter 2007 Progress Report (mentions various email correspondence) 01-31-08

Teleconference re: vapor intrusion sampling implementation  02-14-08

Teleconference re: vapor intrusion sampling implementation   03-06-08

Site visit re: sub-slab soil gas sampling at residential house  03-20-08

DuPont’s Proposed Sub-Slab Vapor Sample Collection Procedures for Building SSDS04-15-08

This delay is sickening, disgraceful and totally unacceptable.

 

Barry Tornick - oversaw Dupont site in career w/EPA

Barry Tornick – oversaw Dupont site in career w/EPA

2) EPA blocks public participation – revolving door at EPA

The EPA region 2 staff person overseeing this mess was Barry Tornick, head of the EPA Region 2 RCRA program.

After more than 7 years of delay, secrecy, and closed door meetings with DEP and Dupont, when the time finally came for action, Tornick subverted RCRA public participation requirements. Here is his May 14, 2008 email recommending that Dupont and DEP avoid RCRA public participation requirements (an email that could have been written by Dupont’s lawyers):

 

>>> <Tornick.Barry@epamail.epa.gov> 05/14/2008 12:02 PM >>>
Maybe we should consider this a Interim Remedial Measures Workplan instead of a Remedial Action Workplan since we want to expedite it and to take a less formal public participation approach than for a remedial action?

So EPA bent the RCRA regulations to avoid public participation. Again, that could not happen under Superfund.

Now, in a supreme irony – you can’t make this stuff up – to add insult to injury, we learn that Tornick has just retired from EPA and is now working for a polluter at a NJ Woodbrook Road Dump Superfund site – and the site is located directly adjacent – virtually in the backyard of – the Edison Wetland Association’s land in Edison!

3) Local politics and ethical lapses at DEP

Ms. Kent - DEP employee and local political hack

Ms. Kent – DEP employee and local political hack

[Update: I just received email from the DEP Ethics Officer that indicates that Ms. Kent clarified the record by submitting a disclaimer to EPA. I will also note here that I intervened with Commissioner Martin on this very reluctantly. I don’t like to do anything to suppress free speech, especially of DEP employees. But this seemed like an egregious example of politics to me and not a good faith exercise. ]

It is no secret that a local faction in Pompton Lakes – including Mayor Cole – is working with Dupont and opposing the Superfund designation by EPA.

Among other things, this group is exaggerating the so called negative economic and “stigma” impacts of a Superfund designation and spreading false and misleading information about Superfund and how it would work at the Dupont site.

It is also no secret that DEP has little credibility or trust among Pompton Lakes residents, or that EPA has taken over lead control of the site from the DEP due to DEP mismanagement and lack of community support.

So, given the sensitivity of these DEP related issues, I was surprised that during the hearing, a woman named Maria Kent, who identified herself as a Chair of the “Environmental Committee” and a DEP employee, spoke in support of the Dupont plan.

I assume that the “Envrionmental Committee” is NOT an “Environmental Commission” and that Ms. Kent was appointed by Mayor Cole for political reasons. Muddying the political waters further is the fact that Ms. Kent’s husband is a PL Township Committee member.

To establish a real Environmental Commission, the full governing body needs to pass an ordinance pursuant to state enabling legislation at NJSA 40:56A et seq. .

During her remarks, Ms. Kent did not affirmatively state that her views did not represent the views of DEP, as required under DEP Ethics Code.

Worse, in addition to these ethical lapses, Kent mislead the public about threats of Congress not funding Superfund cleanups.

Without any evidence, she claimed that she was aware of a NJ  Superfund site where work had stalled on construction of site infrastructure – and that if Congress didn’t appropriate money, then the Dupont site cleanup could stall if it were in the Superfund program.

The latter claim is false. I wrote the below letter to DEP Commisisoner Martin to respond to this ethical lapse:

Dear Commissioner Martin:

On January 5, 2012, a DEP employee named Maria Kent testified at a controversial EPA public hearing in support of a proposed draft RCRA permit modification for the controversial Dupont Pompton Lakes site.
As you know, pursuant to federal RCRA authority, EPA recently revoked certain aspects of DEP’s lead oversight over certain aspects of the cleanup of that site.
During her testimony, Ms. Kent stated that she was Chair of the Pompton Lakes Environmental Committee and a DEP employee. I also understand that Ms. Kent’s spouse, Lloyd Kent, is a Pompton Lakes Council member.
However, I do not recall hearing any clear statement by Ms. Kent to the effect that her testimony did not represent the views or policies of the DEP.
My understanding of the DEP ethics code is that such a clear disclaimer is required under these conditions.
In fact, when I was a DEP employee and a school board member in North Hanover NJ, the DEP ethics Officer at the time issued a memorandum to me that REQUIRED that I read such a disclaimer into the public record during a school board meeting. This disclaimer was required even for DEP issues before the school board that were unrelated to my DEP job responsibilities.
Accordingly, I urge you to look into this matter and direct Ms. Kent to submit a written disclaimer comment to EPA be made a part of the administrative record on the RCRA permit.
The comment period on the draft permit ends on January 13, 2012.
I also urge you to issue ethics Guidance to all DEP employees regarding similar external activities.
Please confirm that these actions have been taken, or provide a written response should you decline this request.
Sincerely,
Bill Wolfe
(writing here as a citizen – not on behalf of NJ PEER or in my capacity as NJ PEER Director)
Lisa Riggiola (back turned on left, w/microphone) criticized Mayor Cole (R, in red)during comments at Dupont RCRA permit hearing on Acid Brook cleanup plan

Lisa Riggiola (back turned on left, w/microphone) criticized Mayor Cole (R, in red)during comments at Dupont RCRA permit hearing on Acid Brook cleanup plan 

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. Philip Bonner
    January 18th, 2012 at 16:57 | #1

    Thank-you for your painstaking work compiling and posting that timeline. No wonder the EPA has not responded. It appears that you have caught EPA with its pants down and have exposed both EPA and NJ DEP neglect and incompetence. It appears that the EPA and NJ DEP were acting on behalf of Dupont’s best interests instead of the safety of the public.

  2. January 18th, 2012 at 17:18 | #2

    Bill:

    Your commitment to environmental justice is unsurpassable! What has happened to the residents living contamination in Pompton Lakes is a crime and a crime that reeks of insult. Funny how most fighting against a SuperFund designation lets say 99.9%, do not even live in the designated contamianted area! The residents here have been through so much and I believe the EPA MUST STEP UP and designated Pompton Lakes a SUPERFUND now. IT IS ONLY RIGHT, MORAL, HUMANE AND ETHICAL THING TO DO!

  3. January 18th, 2012 at 17:29 | #3

    FYI – Mrs. Kent also served as a Councilperson for the borough of Pompton Lakes.

  4. Arthur P Dent
    January 18th, 2012 at 19:06 | #4

    Funny how 99.9% of the people signing Ms. Riggiola’s petition are not PL residents either (I wonder how long it will be before Mr. Wolf removes this post?)

  5. January 18th, 2012 at 19:16 | #5

    @Arthur P Dent

    Mr Dent – I am the moderator of this site, and in that role must approve or reject all comments.

    The only comments I reject are those that are obscene, lies, or attack people with no basis.

    You comment would not even appear if I don’t approve it –

    Although I strongly disagree with your views and am disgusted by your lies and personal attacks on me in public, I don’t believe in limiting legitimate debate.

    With that said, next time you post, would you care to disclose you economic interests in Pompton Lakes?

  6. Bill Wolfe
    January 18th, 2012 at 19:36 | #6

    @Arthur P Dent
    Hey Dent – I figured Lisa would have jumped in by now to show how wrong you are (again) on the fact.

    I haven’t looked at the petition, but lets say it has 8,000 signer.

    That would mean that only 8 came from Pompton lakes.

    I was at a rally where over 40 people showed up in the freezing colds last week, so I know there are more than 8 signers from PL.

    There were over 100 people at the public hearing – 35 commented: 32 opposed and 3 supporters.

    Again, you either lie or are too stupid to understand numbers.

  7. Bill Wolfe
    January 18th, 2012 at 19:40 | #7

    @Arthur P Dent

    and my name is spelled W-O-L-F-E

  8. January 18th, 2012 at 20:20 | #8

    Dent – there are currently 7,995 signatures and many others on hard copy and for you to make an assumption, make it who really cares in all honesty. Many current and former residents of Pompton Lakes, NJ support a SuperFund designation ASAP. Since you cannot view all the signatures, it seems you are trying very hard as usual to stage a stage for C grade movie. BTW, the Pompton Lakes contamination issues is one that many have interest in throughout the world. Many are watching Dent in hope that we succeed and know how long the shennigans of not doing the right thing to clean-up this town have been going on – decades of mismanagement and turning a blind eye maybe?

  9. January 18th, 2012 at 20:22 | #9

    Dent – as you can see we are using our “real names” – be nice if you opted not to hide behind a fictious name and showed some courage. Some things never change – attacks on newspaper comments and now on Mr. Wolfe’s article.

  10. Philip Bonner
    January 18th, 2012 at 23:47 | #10

    Bill your NJ DEP background and knowledge of the whole process, the regulations and inter-governmental agency protocol is priceless in unraveling the EPA/NJ DEP/Dupont matter. Your explanations of he acronyms, alone, is highly enlightening!

    Your timeline highlighted the extensive Dupont/DEP/EPA interaction, seemingly to the complete exclusion of the public.

    It boggles the mind that an employee of the NJ DEP, supposedly an environmental enforcement agency, appears to have publicly taken sides with Dupont, one of the the parties of a matter under the DEP’s purvue/adjudication.

    Shouldn’t NJ DEP employees at least attempt to maintain appearances of impartiality and be careful not to be give appearances of being shills of the targets of NJ DEP investigations and enforcement actions?

    Or, am i mistaken and the NJ DEP was formed to serve polluters and the safety of the public?

    Something has gone terribly wrong and I believe that you are doing a great job of unraveling it/connecting the dots.

    That, alone, reeks of insider cronyism/favoritism

  11. Philip Bonner
    January 18th, 2012 at 23:49 | #11

    Should read: “Or, am i mistaken and the NJ DEP was formed to serve polluters and at the expense of the safety of the public?”

  12. Maria Faudree
    January 19th, 2012 at 08:21 | #12

    @Arthur P Dent
    So not true Arthur. You have no way of even knowing how many are from Pompton Lakes. Only person that has excess to the full list is Lisa Riggiola and I’m sure she did not give you a copy. Many on that list are from PL -born and raised and maybe have moved away but are still living with illness and pain caused by living in Dupont contamination. They deserve to have their voices heard too! Many on that list have lost love ones or have people they love and are concerned about because they live/lived in the PL plume. They also deserve to have their voices heard.

  13. Michael Garbe
    January 19th, 2012 at 13:27 | #13

    “Mr. Dent” if any statements you have made today or in the past had any ring of truth to them you would have had the courage to put your real name behind them. Instead you choose hide behind a veil attacking the truth with lies, half truths and misinformation in an effort to distract people from what needs to be done in this community and that is clean it up! Not just 10% of the lake either, the entire community! It’s people like you that have caused this so called clean up effort to drag on for 30 years with little to NO progress! It is about time you and all you cronies were exposed, and believe me that day is coming sooner than you think. Its time the people of this community unite to fight for what every man, woman, child and creature big and small deserve; a clean, healthy and safe environment to live in. Not only does this make sense from a moral sense, it makes sense from and economic one as well, because once this town is clean peoples faith in the community will soar, property values will be restored, and businesses will boom in this once beautiful community.

  14. Edward Meakem
    January 19th, 2012 at 13:32 | #14

    As a former Councilman I say Bravo! Wolfe I could never express how your wealth of information has helped the people of Pompton Lakes.

    The DuPont sympathizers in Pompton Lakes are made up of people that worked for DuPont , the former and current Mayor , Council and the Bid (That DuPont is the largest contributor to!) The Stoogens who former Mayor Murrin appointed to control it, one of the Biggest Stoogens of the Bid the Chairperson has built more homes in the Vapor Intrusion area including over 20 condominiums and profited the most. I attended a formal EPA CAG(That is supposed to represent the people but no residents attend just the Mayors friends or family) meeting where that person is a member of the EPA CAG also said he has done work for DuPont and received money from them directly and would do so again if the opportunity came up again? Can you say CONFLICT?
    I attended the Permit modification hearing and a transcript was taken and I, recall Mrs. Kent saying she was a DEP employee and her job had taken her too many superfund sites, her visits too these sites were directly because of her work in the DEP. Her comments stated she has seen many Superfund sites left unfinished even ones with responsible parties. I would question where they are and in what capacity she visited. I am sure her work at the DEP would reflect what sites she was commissioned to visit; this information should all be public record and should be easy to obtain.
    Mrs. Kent was a former councilperson but was appointed not elected because of her job with the State of New Jersey and the law prohibit her from running in a partisan election. The only thing I can say is God bless the people like Wolfe,Riggiola,EWA,PLREI, Whom have only asked for a real clean-up with public participation in a timely manner, and not people who cover-up for DuPont and the lack of action by the LAME DUCKS that have had an opportunity to fix the issue in the proper way but instead put up road blocks . Let’s turn up the Heat Help is on the Way.

  15. January 19th, 2012 at 16:27 | #15

    @Ed Meakem – Let’s not forget the original group of hard-working residents volunteering countless hours of their time, the Citizens For A Clean Pompton Lakes. Without their tireless efforts, we would never have experienced the victories that have come our way. I would also like to mention The Pompton Lakes Community Advisory Group (CAG), the “Peoples’ CAG” (www.pomptonlakescag.org) for all of their hard work and continued commitment to making a difference in our community.

  16. Ed Meakem
    January 23rd, 2012 at 16:00 | #16

    For sure Let’s not forget the original group of hard-working residents volunteering countless hours of their time, the Citizens For A Clean Pompton Lakes. Without their tireless efforts, we would never have experienced the victories that have come our way. I would also like to mention The Pompton Lakes Community Advisory Group (CAG), the “Peoples’ CAG” (www.pomptonlakescag.org) for all of their hard work and continued commitment to making a difference in our community.

  17. January 23rd, 2012 at 22:42 | #17

    @Ed Meakem – funny, repeating me.ok??

  18. Jim Melia
    November 15th, 2012 at 12:47 | #18

    As a former resident who grew up ON Barbara Drive, I fear for my own health. I remember playing in the woods across from my house on the DuPont side of the road. I remember the softball/soccer fields being built at the end of our block. I played in this stuff my whole childhood. Seeing the first note of intervention in 1982 leads me to believe there had to be ground pollution in the 70’s (graduated in ’82). We also had a ground water well to water the lawn and fill the pool. Yikes!!!!!!!!! My last thought was that my father was employed as a machinist by DuPont. I remember walking him down the street before the sun came up so that he could go to work…. what a nightmare this all has become!

    Jim Melia
    Baltimore, MD

  1. January 29th, 2012 at 11:17 | #1
  2. February 21st, 2012 at 12:07 | #2
  3. May 12th, 2012 at 09:54 | #3
  4. September 9th, 2012 at 09:11 | #4
  5. March 18th, 2014 at 13:38 | #5
  6. May 4th, 2014 at 12:08 | #6
  7. December 23rd, 2014 at 13:21 | #7
  8. May 20th, 2015 at 11:34 | #8
  9. June 2nd, 2015 at 07:09 | #9
  10. June 12th, 2015 at 08:43 | #10
  11. June 12th, 2015 at 15:49 | #11
  12. February 29th, 2016 at 20:50 | #12
  13. March 14th, 2016 at 09:41 | #13
  14. March 28th, 2016 at 11:54 | #14
  15. March 11th, 2017 at 14:05 | #15
You must be logged in to post a comment.