Home > Uncategorized > Is DEP Faking It on Proposed New Draft Interim Groundwater Standard for PFNA?

Is DEP Faking It on Proposed New Draft Interim Groundwater Standard for PFNA?

DEP Evades Drinking Water Standard MCL Regulatory Process

DEP Gives Chemical Industry A Big Heads Up and Opportunity To Kill

DEP Abandons Historic Precautionary & Protective Approach to Scientific Uncertainty on Health Effects

[Update: 3/23/14 – In light of new information, I need to clarify claim that DEP is evading MCL regulatory procedure, see: When The Spell is Broken. – end update]

In a deviation from historic policy and practice, last Friday, DEP quietly posted on its website a request for public comment on what is sure to be a controversial new “Interim Specific Groundwater Quality Criterion” (ISGWQC) for the toxic chemical perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), see:

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INPUT  ON THE DRAFT INTERIM SPECIFIC GROUND WATER QUALITY CRITERION AND PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LEVEL FOR PERFLUORONONANOIC ACID (PFNA) – MARCH 14, 2014

Oh boy, that’s a mouthful – What the hell is PFNA and an ISGWQS you ask?

And therein lies the rub. Work with me on this, it’s complicated.

But before I can get to why I think DEP may be “faking it”, I need to lay out a little background.

  • What are the environmental & health issues with PFNA?

PFNA recently has been discovered in the groundwater and drinking water of several south jersey towns, most visibly in media coverage is the situation in Paulsboro. I wrote about the implications of that situation in this post: Paulsboro NJ Suffers Another Toxic Assault.

The suspected source of the chemical is the Solvay Solexis chemical plant just north of town in Thorofare. The plant has failed to cleanup groundwater contamination and EPA and DEP regulators have not enforced federal and state laws to mandate a complete and protective cleanup.

So, the case also highlights major regulatory failures as well, particularly in the RCRA Corrective Action program, a toxic site cleanup program enacted by Congress in 1984, which, 30 years later, NJ still has not been delegated authority from EPA to implement.

Attorney and former DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell is representing Paulsboro in a lawsuit against Solvay-Solexis, alleging an “imminent and substantial risk to human health and the environment”. That lawsuit raises a host of significant controversial issues. For details, see this.

Campbell capably nails the scientific, regulatory, and political issues as the obvious source for this Inside EPA national story:

Simultaneously, the mayor of Paulsboro is appealing to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) to intervene and task the state with undertaking blood studies of residents, using the state spill law and other laws to force Solvay to provide alternative drinking water in the interim, hold public meetings on the risks at the site, and reconvene the NJDEP Drinking Water Quality Institute, in order for it to develop standards for PFCs in drinking water. 

We’ve been a longtime critic of the fact that the Drinking Water Quality Institute has not met since September 2010, while DEP regulatory standards programs are in disarrayand there is  a huge backlog of scientific recommendations to tighten drinking water standards that are being ignored by the Christie DEP.

So, the Campbell lawsuit and the DEP’s draft ISGWQC for PFNA shine a huge spotlight on some major league problems at the DEP.

According to DEP, exposure to PFNA is associated with adverse health effects:

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA, C9) is a member of the class of chemicals called perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). These chemicals have many industrial and commercial uses, are chemically non-reactive, and do not degrade in the environment. Because they are water soluble, they can contaminate surface water and ground water used as drinking water sources. They are not removed from drinking water by conventional treatment processes, but can be removed by granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis and possibly other non-standard treatment processes.

PFNA has been found less frequently and at lower concentrations than the more well-known PFCs, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), in drinking water studies from the U.S. and around the world. Drinking water levels (up to 72 ng/L and 150 ng/L) in wells of two public water supplies in Gloucester County, NJ were higher than reported elsewhere in the world. PFNA has also been recently found at lower levels (up to 56 ng/L) in wells of several other Gloucester County public water supplies. PFNA in these wells is believed to result from past releases from a Gloucester County industrial facility.

  • What are the regulatory issues?

Here is DEP’s explanation of an ISGWQC:

Regulatory Background: The Interim Specific Ground Water Quality Standard process is initiated when the Site Remediation program, or other regulatory program within the Department, identifies the need for a Ground Water Quality Standard (GWQS) for a contaminant that is not included in the Ground Water Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:9 Appendix Table 1). Calculation of an ISGWQC combined with the PQL is used to develop the Interim Specific Ground Water Quality Standard. The Site Remediation Program deems the Interim Specific Ground Water Quality Standards to be ground water remediation standards pursuant to the Remediation Standards at N.J.A.C. 7:26D-2.2(a)1. See: http://www.nj.gov/dep/wms/bwqsa/gwqs.htm for additional information on GWQS.

It is important to note exactly what an ISGWQC is, where and when and how it applies, and what it is not:

1) t is NOT a drinking water standard (i.e MCL). So, water companies will not be required to test for it; disclose results to consumers; treat to remove it to the level that DEP proposes in the IGWQS (20 nano grams/L)

2) it is NOT promulgated as a regulation based on a recommendation from the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute. So, DEP dodges the reality that the DWQI is dormant or dead.

3) it is Limited to the site remediation program, where groundwater quality standards are implemented in the cleanup process. So, the DEP’s draft ISGWQS, if adopted as final – which is a big “if” at this point – wil only apply in a very limited number of sites where PFNA contamination os suspected.

4) it is NOT adopted a a formal regulation in accordance with formal rule making procedures. This procedural defect raises issues of whether the ISGWQS can be enforced and it invites litigation by the chemical companies that DEP may try to apply it to.

  •  So what is the problem?

DEP is posting the draft ISGWQC on the DEP website and inviting public comment. DEP announced that a more detailed technical document will be posted next Friday (3/21/14). What’s wrong with that?

Historically, DEP merely posted a notice on the website regarding their adoption of an IGWQC. DEP provided no public comment opportunity. That process is allowed under DEP rules, which have nothing about a public comment process.

The DEP’s new approach to providing more public participation, at best, is done in deference to industry criticism.

But, at worst, more significantly and more likely, DEP’s provision of additional opportunity for public comment while revising the basis for action mirrors sophisticated chemical industry tactics used in two recent legislative rollback efforts:

1) the attempt to stack the Drining Water Quality Institute with industry representatives, alter the procedures for setting regulatory standards, and alter the scientific factors that may be considered by DEP in setting those standards, see:  Should the Chemical Industry Have a Role in Writing Your Drinking Water Standards?

2) the bid to revise the process for recommending sites for consideration for listing as Superfund sites, see: NJ Legislators Propose To Change State Role In Superfund Site Listing Process

In a sophisticated attempt to game the regulatory system, both those industry strategies create the appearance of improving the process and providing more transparency, while actually biasing the process in favor of industry interests.The DEP’s ISGWQC shares exactly those misleading appearances, while failing to pull the real regulatory trigger.

1. The process helps industry lobbyists more than public interest advocates.

DEP’s basis and background document acknowledges that there is scientific uncertainty regarding health effects. What’s wrong with that?

Plenty. And this takes me to my concern that DEP is faking it.

If DEP seriously wanted to address drinking water risks of PFNA, then the appropriate procedure to do so if via a referral to the Drinking Water Quality Institute to develop a recommended drinking water MCL.

DEP would then adopt the DWQI recommended MCL as an enforceable regulatory standard. Water companies would be required to monitor, treat and inform consumers about PFNA, just like all other regulated drinking water contaminants.

The chemical industry would be provided ample opportunity to challenge the DWQI science, risk assessment, and the DEP regulation in the formal and transparent rule-making process.

But, DEP didn’t do any of this. And that’s what troubles me.

DEP even deviated from their historical practice of simply announcing a ISGWQI as a fait accompli. Instead, DEP is allowing for a 30 day comment period and going beyond even that to provide an additional week heads up.

So, what’s wrong with giving more time for public comment?

Plenty – more time gives industry scientists and lobbyists more opportunity to intervene behind the scenes without the accountability that the formal regulatory process provides.

Similarly, more time and opportunity to comment gives industry an advantage, as no NJ environmental group has adequate scientific or legal expertise  to credibly and effectively intervene. We must simply admit that industry has the public badly outgunned on maters of scientific and legal expertise required to participate effectively in complex regulatory proceedings like this.

The longer DEP allows this proposal to twist in the wind, the more likely it is to be killed.

2. The proposed ISGWQC abandons DEP’s historial precautionary approach to scientific uncertainty regarding health effects.

Traditionally, the DEP’s approach to addressing legitimate scientific uncertainty in evaluating the health effects and regulating toxic chemicals is to err on the side of caution and build in conservative factors, based upon the most sensitive population exposed. That is a legally and scientifically valid and appropriate “precautionary” policy approach to science.

At the same time, a longtime tactic of industry to derail, delay, and weaken costly environmental and public health regulations is to exploit uncertainty and “manufacture doubt” about the science.

We recently wrote about how the tactics exposed by Professor David Michaels’ classic book “Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health” were deployed in NJ by Dupont corporation with respect to their toxic chemical PFOA, see:

So, depending on who is making the argument, uncertainty can work both ways – as a rationale to err on the side of caution or to provide an excuse to do nothing.

In this case, the DEP seems to be using scientific uncertainty in exactly the wrong way. Instead of a precautionary approach, DEP is pursuing an industry friendly approach that errs on the side on resolving the uncertainty in a manner that is certain to poison the public and the most sensitive population.

That change in scientific approach to uncertainty in found in this paragraph, which explicitly states that in the summary:

Key Uncertaintiespage5image8352

• Ongoing exposure to PFNA at 20 ng/L (0.02 μg/L) in drinking water is estimated to contribute an additional 4 ng/ml, on average, to the PFNA concentration in blood serum already present in the general population. Thus, the average serum level in communities with drinking water at this concentration is estimated at about 5.5 ng/ml, 3.7-fold higher than the average serum level of about 1.5 ng/ml in the adult general population (who are assumed to have no drinking water exposure). A serum level of 5.5 ng/ml is well above the 95th percentile PFNA serum level of 4.0 ng/ml in the adult U.S. general population. In infants and children, serum levels from ongoing exposure to 20 ng/L PFNA in drinking water would possibly be greater than in adults, due to their greater water consumption on a body weight basis. Several potentially important health endpoints have been associated with PFNA in the human general population exposure range, although it is not clear whether these associations reflect causality. Thus, there is uncertainty about the extent of protection provided by a criterion that will result in serum PFNA levels several-fold above the general population range. 

We urge competent public interest toxicologists to look closely at this particular issue of how legitimate uncertainty was resolved numerically.

The bottom line is that this DEP ISGWQC is an unusual deviation – both procedurally and substantively – from past practice.

Both the process and the substance appears to benefit industry at the expense of public health.

In fact, DEP may have made errors in not promulgating this IGWQC as a MCL regulatory standard, thus inviting industry legal and political challenge – thereby sabotaging their own work instead of doing the right thing (which would shine a spotlight on DEP’s failures regarding the DWQI).

Thus, the “faking it” concern.

 

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
Comment pages
1 4 5 6 32655
  1. March 23rd, 2014 at 16:32 | #1
  2. April 24th, 2015 at 21:38 | #2
  3. May 18th, 2015 at 16:50 | #3
  4. May 18th, 2015 at 22:28 | #4
  5. May 21st, 2015 at 21:43 | #5
  6. May 22nd, 2015 at 05:15 | #6
  7. May 27th, 2015 at 11:45 | #7
  8. May 27th, 2015 at 14:00 | #8
  9. May 28th, 2015 at 06:34 | #9
  10. May 28th, 2015 at 06:38 | #10
  11. May 28th, 2015 at 07:20 | #11
  12. May 28th, 2015 at 16:02 | #12
  13. May 29th, 2015 at 17:54 | #13
  14. May 29th, 2015 at 18:18 | #14
  15. May 29th, 2015 at 18:29 | #15
  16. May 29th, 2015 at 18:34 | #16
  17. May 29th, 2015 at 21:55 | #17
  18. May 30th, 2015 at 00:06 | #18
  19. May 30th, 2015 at 05:09 | #19
  20. May 31st, 2015 at 03:45 | #20
  21. May 31st, 2015 at 09:02 | #21
  22. May 31st, 2015 at 09:16 | #22
  23. May 31st, 2015 at 15:40 | #23
  24. May 31st, 2015 at 17:59 | #24
  25. June 1st, 2015 at 12:21 | #25
  26. June 1st, 2015 at 12:50 | #26
  27. June 1st, 2015 at 15:02 | #27
  28. June 1st, 2015 at 16:39 | #28
  29. June 1st, 2015 at 16:55 | #29
  30. June 1st, 2015 at 17:02 | #30
  31. June 2nd, 2015 at 03:50 | #31
  32. June 2nd, 2015 at 19:01 | #32
  33. June 3rd, 2015 at 11:05 | #33
  34. June 3rd, 2015 at 12:56 | #34
  35. June 3rd, 2015 at 13:36 | #35
  36. June 3rd, 2015 at 18:12 | #36
  37. June 3rd, 2015 at 19:51 | #37
  38. June 4th, 2015 at 18:10 | #38
  39. June 4th, 2015 at 23:01 | #39
  40. June 5th, 2015 at 01:24 | #40
  41. June 5th, 2015 at 05:39 | #41
  42. June 5th, 2015 at 11:29 | #42
  43. June 6th, 2015 at 04:03 | #43
  44. June 6th, 2015 at 08:48 | #44
  45. June 6th, 2015 at 16:04 | #45
  46. June 6th, 2015 at 17:46 | #46
  47. June 6th, 2015 at 17:57 | #47
  48. June 7th, 2015 at 11:32 | #48
  49. June 7th, 2015 at 15:11 | #49
  50. June 8th, 2015 at 07:33 | #50
  51. June 8th, 2015 at 16:01 | #51
  52. June 8th, 2015 at 18:46 | #52
  53. June 8th, 2015 at 21:16 | #53
  54. June 8th, 2015 at 22:43 | #54
  55. June 9th, 2015 at 03:48 | #55
  56. June 9th, 2015 at 13:02 | #56
  57. June 9th, 2015 at 13:14 | #57
  58. June 10th, 2015 at 11:26 | #58
  59. June 10th, 2015 at 12:53 | #59
  60. June 10th, 2015 at 13:20 | #60
  61. June 11th, 2015 at 02:02 | #61
  62. June 11th, 2015 at 03:10 | #62
  63. June 18th, 2015 at 19:02 | #63
  64. June 19th, 2015 at 12:38 | #64
  65. June 20th, 2015 at 16:55 | #65
  66. June 21st, 2015 at 11:29 | #66
  67. June 22nd, 2015 at 10:25 | #67
  68. June 22nd, 2015 at 20:09 | #68
  69. June 24th, 2015 at 16:12 | #69
  70. June 25th, 2015 at 06:34 | #70
  71. June 25th, 2015 at 07:05 | #71
  72. June 25th, 2015 at 07:15 | #72
  73. June 25th, 2015 at 07:50 | #73
  74. June 25th, 2015 at 16:29 | #74
  75. June 25th, 2015 at 16:37 | #75
  76. June 25th, 2015 at 17:50 | #76
  77. June 25th, 2015 at 20:10 | #77
  78. June 25th, 2015 at 21:28 | #78
  79. June 25th, 2015 at 23:56 | #79
  80. June 26th, 2015 at 01:26 | #80
  81. June 26th, 2015 at 02:49 | #81
  82. June 26th, 2015 at 03:40 | #82
  83. June 26th, 2015 at 03:57 | #83
  84. June 26th, 2015 at 10:35 | #84
  85. June 26th, 2015 at 11:18 | #85
  86. June 26th, 2015 at 14:47 | #86
  87. June 26th, 2015 at 16:32 | #87
  88. June 27th, 2015 at 05:08 | #88
  89. June 27th, 2015 at 15:25 | #89
  90. June 27th, 2015 at 15:28 | #90
  91. June 27th, 2015 at 15:41 | #91
  92. June 27th, 2015 at 16:14 | #92
  93. June 28th, 2015 at 02:45 | #93
  94. June 28th, 2015 at 04:23 | #94
  95. June 28th, 2015 at 08:00 | #95
  96. June 28th, 2015 at 17:30 | #96
  97. June 28th, 2015 at 18:32 | #97
  98. June 28th, 2015 at 19:17 | #98
  99. June 29th, 2015 at 03:31 | #99
  100. June 29th, 2015 at 22:59 | #100
  101. June 30th, 2015 at 00:52 | #101
  102. July 1st, 2015 at 08:37 | #102
  103. July 1st, 2015 at 09:35 | #103
  104. July 1st, 2015 at 11:37 | #104
  105. July 1st, 2015 at 12:35 | #105
  106. July 1st, 2015 at 16:19 | #106
  107. July 1st, 2015 at 16:45 | #107
  108. July 2nd, 2015 at 00:52 | #108
  109. July 2nd, 2015 at 01:14 | #109
  110. July 2nd, 2015 at 01:34 | #110
  111. July 2nd, 2015 at 12:23 | #111
  112. July 2nd, 2015 at 12:35 | #112
  113. July 2nd, 2015 at 12:43 | #113
  114. July 2nd, 2015 at 13:00 | #114
  115. July 3rd, 2015 at 05:58 | #115
  116. July 3rd, 2015 at 06:33 | #116
  117. July 3rd, 2015 at 07:59 | #117
  118. July 3rd, 2015 at 08:10 | #118
  119. July 3rd, 2015 at 08:32 | #119
  120. July 3rd, 2015 at 08:46 | #120
  121. July 3rd, 2015 at 09:02 | #121
  122. July 3rd, 2015 at 09:05 | #122
  123. July 3rd, 2015 at 09:41 | #123
  124. July 3rd, 2015 at 09:55 | #124
  125. July 3rd, 2015 at 18:05 | #125
  126. July 3rd, 2015 at 18:26 | #126
  127. July 3rd, 2015 at 19:19 | #127
  128. July 3rd, 2015 at 19:24 | #128
  129. July 3rd, 2015 at 19:46 | #129
  130. July 3rd, 2015 at 19:49 | #130
  131. July 3rd, 2015 at 23:25 | #131
  132. July 3rd, 2015 at 23:49 | #132
  133. July 4th, 2015 at 00:30 | #133
  134. July 4th, 2015 at 04:17 | #134
  135. July 4th, 2015 at 04:44 | #135
  136. July 4th, 2015 at 05:44 | #136
  137. July 4th, 2015 at 05:57 | #137
  138. July 4th, 2015 at 19:18 | #138
  139. July 4th, 2015 at 20:38 | #139
  140. July 4th, 2015 at 20:53 | #140
  141. July 4th, 2015 at 20:56 | #141
  142. July 4th, 2015 at 21:02 | #142
  143. July 4th, 2015 at 21:04 | #143
  144. July 4th, 2015 at 21:18 | #144
  145. July 4th, 2015 at 22:52 | #145
  146. July 4th, 2015 at 23:33 | #146
  147. July 5th, 2015 at 00:45 | #147
  148. July 5th, 2015 at 01:10 | #148
  149. July 5th, 2015 at 02:28 | #149
  150. July 5th, 2015 at 02:51 | #150
  151. July 5th, 2015 at 08:15 | #151
  152. July 5th, 2015 at 13:39 | #152
  153. July 5th, 2015 at 14:03 | #153
  154. July 5th, 2015 at 20:10 | #154
  155. July 5th, 2015 at 20:33 | #155
  156. July 5th, 2015 at 20:33 | #156
  157. July 5th, 2015 at 20:34 | #157
  158. July 5th, 2015 at 20:54 | #158
  159. July 5th, 2015 at 21:02 | #159
  160. July 5th, 2015 at 22:10 | #160
  161. July 6th, 2015 at 00:25 | #161
  162. July 6th, 2015 at 02:51 | #162
  163. July 6th, 2015 at 06:53 | #163
  164. July 6th, 2015 at 07:18 | #164
  165. July 6th, 2015 at 07:40 | #165
  166. July 6th, 2015 at 07:55 | #166
  167. July 6th, 2015 at 07:58 | #167
  168. July 6th, 2015 at 14:19 | #168
  169. July 6th, 2015 at 18:53 | #169
  170. July 6th, 2015 at 19:02 | #170
  171. July 6th, 2015 at 19:22 | #171
  172. July 7th, 2015 at 01:12 | #172
  173. July 7th, 2015 at 01:36 | #173
  174. July 7th, 2015 at 06:20 | #174
  175. July 7th, 2015 at 08:13 | #175
  176. July 7th, 2015 at 08:37 | #176
  177. July 7th, 2015 at 09:35 | #177
  178. July 7th, 2015 at 10:20 | #178
  179. July 7th, 2015 at 10:57 | #179
  180. July 7th, 2015 at 10:58 | #180
  181. July 7th, 2015 at 16:49 | #181
  182. July 7th, 2015 at 16:50 | #182
  183. July 7th, 2015 at 16:50 | #183
  184. July 7th, 2015 at 17:32 | #184
  185. July 7th, 2015 at 17:44 | #185
  186. July 7th, 2015 at 18:00 | #186
  187. July 7th, 2015 at 18:10 | #187
  188. July 7th, 2015 at 19:58 | #188
  189. July 7th, 2015 at 20:39 | #189
  190. July 7th, 2015 at 20:51 | #190
  191. July 7th, 2015 at 20:52 | #191
  192. July 7th, 2015 at 20:53 | #192
  193. July 7th, 2015 at 20:54 | #193
  194. July 8th, 2015 at 03:10 | #194
  195. July 8th, 2015 at 04:29 | #195
  196. July 8th, 2015 at 04:45 | #196
  197. July 8th, 2015 at 08:17 | #197
  198. July 8th, 2015 at 13:16 | #198
  199. July 8th, 2015 at 13:43 | #199
  200. July 8th, 2015 at 14:06 | #200
  201. July 8th, 2015 at 15:06 | #201
  202. July 8th, 2015 at 15:19 | #202
  203. July 8th, 2015 at 15:34 | #203
  204. July 8th, 2015 at 15:37 | #204
  205. July 8th, 2015 at 18:59 | #205
  206. July 8th, 2015 at 19:32 | #206
  207. July 8th, 2015 at 19:45 | #207
  208. July 8th, 2015 at 20:05 | #208
  209. July 8th, 2015 at 21:02 | #209
  210. July 8th, 2015 at 23:53 | #210
  211. July 9th, 2015 at 00:04 | #211
  212. July 9th, 2015 at 03:44 | #212
  213. July 9th, 2015 at 03:58 | #213
  214. July 9th, 2015 at 04:44 | #214
  215. July 9th, 2015 at 05:08 | #215
  216. July 9th, 2015 at 05:21 | #216
  217. July 9th, 2015 at 05:41 | #217
  218. July 9th, 2015 at 06:29 | #218
  219. July 9th, 2015 at 06:29 | #219
  220. July 9th, 2015 at 11:37 | #220
  221. July 9th, 2015 at 12:13 | #221
  222. July 9th, 2015 at 14:48 | #222
  223. July 9th, 2015 at 15:42 | #223
  224. July 9th, 2015 at 15:57 | #224
  225. July 9th, 2015 at 17:07 | #225
  226. July 9th, 2015 at 17:38 | #226
  227. July 9th, 2015 at 18:21 | #227
  228. July 9th, 2015 at 19:34 | #228
  229. July 9th, 2015 at 20:15 | #229
  230. July 9th, 2015 at 21:28 | #230
  231. July 9th, 2015 at 21:48 | #231
  232. July 10th, 2015 at 03:16 | #232
  233. July 10th, 2015 at 03:23 | #233
  234. July 10th, 2015 at 05:23 | #234
  235. July 10th, 2015 at 09:37 | #235
  236. July 10th, 2015 at 10:09 | #236
  237. July 10th, 2015 at 12:22 | #237
  238. July 10th, 2015 at 12:30 | #238
  239. July 10th, 2015 at 14:56 | #239
  240. July 10th, 2015 at 16:04 | #240
  241. July 10th, 2015 at 20:03 | #241
  242. July 10th, 2015 at 21:31 | #242
  243. July 11th, 2015 at 04:03 | #243
  244. July 11th, 2015 at 04:25 | #244
  245. July 11th, 2015 at 04:49 | #245
  246. July 11th, 2015 at 04:50 | #246
  247. July 11th, 2015 at 04:53 | #247
  248. July 11th, 2015 at 05:14 | #248
  249. July 11th, 2015 at 06:35 | #249
  250. July 11th, 2015 at 06:35 | #250
  251. July 11th, 2015 at 07:30 | #251
  252. July 11th, 2015 at 09:41 | #252
  253. July 11th, 2015 at 14:36 | #253
  254. July 11th, 2015 at 14:42 | #254
  255. July 11th, 2015 at 14:55 | #255
  256. July 11th, 2015 at 14:59 | #256
  257. July 11th, 2015 at 21:13 | #257
  258. July 11th, 2015 at 21:34 | #258
  259. July 11th, 2015 at 21:39 | #259
  260. July 12th, 2015 at 00:00 | #260
  261. July 12th, 2015 at 04:07 | #261
  262. July 12th, 2015 at 04:26 | #262
  263. July 12th, 2015 at 06:36 | #263
  264. July 12th, 2015 at 09:36 | #264
  265. July 12th, 2015 at 10:40 | #265
  266. July 12th, 2015 at 11:51 | #266
  267. July 12th, 2015 at 12:26 | #267
  268. July 12th, 2015 at 13:00 | #268
  269. July 12th, 2015 at 14:08 | #269
  270. July 12th, 2015 at 16:22 | #270
  271. July 12th, 2015 at 18:15 | #271
  272. July 12th, 2015 at 19:32 | #272
  273. July 12th, 2015 at 19:43 | #273
  274. July 13th, 2015 at 03:42 | #274
  275. July 13th, 2015 at 03:42 | #275
  276. July 13th, 2015 at 09:19 | #276
  277. July 13th, 2015 at 12:12 | #277
  278. July 13th, 2015 at 12:33 | #278
  279. July 13th, 2015 at 13:09 | #279
  280. July 13th, 2015 at 13:10 | #280
  281. February 25th, 2017 at 11:00 | #281
You must be logged in to post a comment.