Ohio Environmental Law Blog : Ohio Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Joseph Koncelik : Frantz Ward Law Firm : Environmental Regulation, Land Use, Compliance : Cleveland, Ohio

Al Gore, speaking at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, called for young people to perform acts of civil disobedience to stop construction of new coal plants.  He also has called for State Attorney Generals to review whether utilities are committing stock fraud by discounting the threat of global warming. 

I put this post up after writing yesterday about the Arkansas proposal to pass legislation prohibiting construction of new coal plants.  Preventing construction of new coal plants that do not use carbon sequestration appears to be the number one strategy of green groups and those concerned with global warming. 

Ohio could soon be a major battle ground.  While the AMP Ohio facility has received its permit for construction of its new baseload coal power plant, it should be bracing itself for challenges on all fronts. During the public comment period on the new period concern was expressed that the facility would emit 7.3 million tons of CO2 per year.  Right now AMP Ohio appears to be the rare coal plant project that is still moving forward having received its authorization to construct from Ohio EPA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported in the Texarkana Gazette, the Arkansas State Commission on Global Warming is likely to recommend a ban on new coal fired power plants.  The Commission is also proposing construction of a new $1.5 billion dollar plant be delayed until carbon sequestration technology can be added to the plant. 

What is the Arkansas Governor's Commission on Global Warming?  Here is a description taken right from its web page:

With the signing of Act 696 of the Arkansas 86Th General Assembly (HB2460), Governor Mike Beebe established the Governor’s Commission on Global Warming. By design the Commission represents a wide diversity of views and perspectives with members coming from business, industry, environmental groups, and academia.

The Commission is charged with setting a “global warming pollution reduction goal” for Arkansas and a “comprehensive strategic plan for implementation of the global warming pollution reduction goal.” The Act sets several study and evaluation requirements and requires a final report be provided to the Governor by November 1, 2008.
 

The developments in Arkansas represent yet another in a series of legal, legislative and political attacks on new coal fired power plants.  The attacks have been successful, between 2007 and 2008 plans for at least 69 coal plants have been canceled.

In the article a utility representative comments that the decision would force continued use of older less efficient coal fired power plants.  His argument that the decision will be bad overall for the environment. 

While I sympathize with the argument we should not be adding to the problem, what alternatives are being suggested to replace old plants or meet ever increasing demands for electricity?  While renewables are a great solution, there is no denying they do not provide the baseload generation of either a coal or nuclear plant. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On September 24, 2008 U.S EPA filed its petition to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for rehearing En Banc on the vacatur of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).  While focus may be on EPA's request for rehearing, a significant concession was made in EPA's brief that has major implications regardless of whether rehearing is granted. 

EPA Concedes CAIR Phase Two Reductions Are Not Aggressive Enough

EPA elected to not seek review of the Court's holding that the 2015 deadline for Phase II reductions is unlawful because it is inconsistent with the shorter compliance deadlines for ozone and p.m. 2.5 contained in the Clean Air Act.  The Court held EPA must require reductions as "expeditiously as practical" but no later than the deadlines established in the Clean Air Act (typically 2010).  In the Court's words:

EPA did not make any effort to harmonize CAIR's Phase Two deadline for upwind contributors to eliminate their significant contribution with the attainment deadlines for downwind areas North Carolina v. EPA slip op. at 25

EPA's concession on the Phase Two deadline runs counter to the Bush Administration's position that a legislative fix of CAIR must preserve the entire program.  To the extent EPA's concedes this point in its rehearing is somewhat puzzling as it was unnecessary at this stage of legal maneuvering.  Perhaps this concession paves the way for a Congressional compromise over a short term legislative fix that preserves Phase I of the program.   Certainly this concession means a rewrite of CAIR that includes more aggressive reductions seems inevitable.

EPA's Arguments in Support of Rehearing

EPA's brief appears to try and lay a guilt trip on the Court as its justification for a rehearing.  EPA rightfully points out the major benefits of CAIR that will be lost if at least Phase I of the program is not preserved:

Most significantly, vacatur will jeopardize massive emission reductions...and accompanying improvements in public health.  EPA estimated that CAIR would prevent 13,000 deaths annually by 2010 and 17,000 premature deaths annually by 2015.

Vacatur will also destroy or reduce the value of banked allowances that companies generated through early emission reductions...6.9 million tons of banked Title IV allowances have lost over three billion dollars in value [since the Court's decision]

There is no doubt the courts decision to throw out the CAIR program has resulted in chaos both in the trading markets and with State's struggling to reach attainment with federal air quality standards.  We will see if the Court agrees that these dire consequences satisfy the standard for review that the matter involve a question of "exceptional importance." 

As a second basis justifying review of the decision, EPA argues that the Court has been inconsistent in its review of the NOx SIP Call and CAIR.  The EPA argues the Court previously upheld the NOx SIP Call in Michigan v. EPA and CAIR uses the "same fundamental approach approved in Michigan."  Both air pollution control programs use economic factors to determine the amount of contribution to downwind state nonattainment upwind states must eliminate.  The economic factor being "highly cost effective controls."

This is the crux of the legal issue and has significant implications for the design of any cap and trade program to control air pollution.  Does the Clean Air Act call for elimination of contribution to downwind air quality issues based upon cost of controls or does it require reductions based upon a State's actual contribution to downwind nonattainment?  If it is ultimately decided that actual contribution must be eliminated, it may prove very difficult to craft a valid cap and trade program without new legislative authority.

EPA's strategy to argue inconsistency appears pretty risky given the fact the Court raises questions regarding legality of the NOx SIP Call.  Specifically, the Court states:  "In Michigan we never passed on the lawfulness of the NOx SIP Call's trading program."  The Court's decision appears to suggest it would have thrown out the NOx SIP Call as well if proper challenges had been made.  

The EPA appears to face a steep climb to ultimately win its appeal.   The Court was unanimous in its finding that basing required reductions on cost effective controls does not comply with the Clean Air Act.

What's Next For CAIR?

Through legal maneuvering, U.S. EPA can effectively delay the effectiveness of the Court's decision to vacate CAIR.  The rehearing petition will likely delay it for a couple months while the Court considers the petition including allowing comment by other parties.  Even if the rehearing is denied, which appears likely given the original decision was unanimous, U.S. EPA can file a motion to stay the effectiveness of the decision while it seeks appeal to the Supreme Court.  By Court rules a stay, if granted or not challenged by the other parties, is good for 90 days.

While EPA delays the effect of the Court's vacatur of the program, efforts will focus on a legislative fix that can preserve at least the immediate future of the program.  However, time is running out on this "quick fix" option as Congress adjourns for the election.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a critical strategy proposed for combating climate change.  It involves the injection of CO2, a greenhouse gas, generated by coal-fired power plants and industrial facilities deep beneath the earth's surface for long term storage. 

There are potential significant issues with CCS, including:

1. 1.  Pollutants from the plant mixing with the CO2 that is injected leading to contamination of water supplies;
2. 2.  Potential mobility of CO2 once it is injected; and
3. 3.  Corrositivity of CO2 may result in release of subsurface contaminants into drinking water supplies

The Department of Energy and Coal State's are betting heavily on the success of carbon sequestration.  Federal funds are supporting some 25 projects around the country that will investigate the feasibility of CCS. 

To address the concerns with CCS, U.S. EPA and the States are beginning to develop regulations for CCS projects.  This Summer major developments include release of U.S. EPA's rules and the issuance of an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit by Ohio EPA for an Ohio test site.

Beginning this month, the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Project (MRCSP) is utilizing FirstEnergy's R.E. Burger Plant as a test site for injection of up to 3,000 tons of CO2. As reported on the MRCSP web page, the period of injection could vary from three to eight weeks, depending on the properties of the injection zones and the time needed for experimental set-up, regulatory oversight and monitoring.

The injection follows Ohio EPA's issuance on September 2, 2008 of a permit to allow the installation and pilot testing of the underground injection well for purposes of carbon sequestration.  This is the first permit issued in Ohio that would allow injection of CO2 subsurface for purposes of carbon sequestration.  Some interesting aspects of the permit include:

1. Injection will occur at three different geologic locations-  the intervals range from 5,923 feet to 8,274 feet below surface.  The intervals are selected to prevent mobility of the injected CO2.
2. Closure financial responsibility-  Total project closeout including closure of the well in accordance with regulatory requirements were estimated at $75,000 to $100,000.  This amount only covers sealing of the well.  No money is set aside in the event any other issues arise. Some may question whether this is sufficient financial assurance if it was anything other than a test site.
3. Monitoring of Injected Fluids-  On a quarterly basis, the injected material will be analyzed for various contaminants including SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and mercury.  The monitoring is an attempt to verify contaminants from the plant are not mixed with the injected CO2.

Issuance of the permit precedes finalization of U.S. EPA proposed rules governing regulation of carbon sequestration projects.   U.S. EPA's proposed rules and Ohio EPA's permit rely on similar legal authority on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA).  The permit together with the proposed rules give insight into how CCS projects could be regulated in the future. Areas covered by both the permit and U.S. EPA's proposed rule include:

• Geologic site characterization to ensure that wells are appropriately sited
• Requirements to construct wells in a manner that prevents fluid movement into unintended zones;
• Periodic re-evaluation of the area around the injection well to verify that the CO2 is moving as predicted within the subsurface;
• Testing of the mechanical integrity of the injection well, ground water monitoring, and tracking of the location of the injected CO2 to ensure protection of underground sources of drinking water;
• Extended post-injection monitoring and site care to track the location of the injected CO2 and monitor subsurface pressures; and
• Financial responsibility requirements to assure that funds will be available for well plugging, site care, closure, and emergency and remedial response.

While the regulations and permitting of CCS are moving forward, not everyone is embracing CCS. In recent testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, serious concerns were raised by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) about the potential effect CCS technology may have on the nation's underground sources of drinking water.  Strong regulations and successful pilot tests will go a long way to addressing these concerns.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A lawsuit filed this week  raises an important question about the relationship between the federal government and states pertaining to environmental regulations.  At issue is how much flexibility state's have to modify their air pollution control plans used to comply with federal air quality standards.  As reported in the Columbus Dispatch, the Sierra Club has challenged Ohio's ability to increase the threshold for triggering the requirement to install best available technology (BAT) on smaller sources of air pollution. 

The specific exemption was included in Sentate Bill 265 which increased the BAT exemption from 1.8 tons per year to 10 tons per year.  These sources will still have to include air pollution controls, typically what is called "reasonably available control technology" (RACT).  However, they will no longer have to meet the more stringent BAT standard.

The Sierra Club goal is to prevent small pollution sources from being allowed to increase emissions.  However, they are missing the critical issue.  As long as overall pollution levels remain the same, shouldn't states be allowed to choose what methods they will employ to meet federal air quality standards?  Also, shouldn't states be allowed to change methods if they find one to be ineffective or inefficient?  

The increase in the BAT trigger threshold was adopted because there was a strong belief Ohio was over regulating small sources of air pollution.  As an example, Ohio regulates over 70,000 air sources while its neighbor, Michigan, only regulates 7,000.  Obviously the disparity is not attirubated to Michigan having far less industry or manufacturing, its attiributable to the fact Michigan has a higher threshold for triggering the need for a permit. The Legislation was an attempt to address this disparity.  [A prior post discussed the policy motivations behind the legislation and U.S. EPA's concerns with the changes]

The Sierra Club argues the change violates the Clean Air Act's "anti-backsliding" prohibition.  Under the Clean Air Act, state's are not allowed to undermine the progress made in improving air quality by reducing air pollution control requirements.  However, state's have some discretion to substitute old requirements with equally effective new requirements.

Ohio wants to amend its state air pollution control plan (SIP) to substitute the requirement to install BAT on small sources with other requirements targetting other sources that are currently being implemented.  The new requirements will more than make up for any pollution increase attributable to dropping BAT for small sources.

Shouldn't the State's be allowed to substitute less effective or inefficient pollution control requirements with new requirements that will produce equal or greater reductions?  Hopefully, the Courts and U.S. EPA will say yes.  Otherwise, less effective requirements remain on the books forever. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The initial comment period is now closed on the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio's (PUCO) draft rules for implementation of the Alternative and Renewable Energy Requirements. The PUCO received hundreds of pages of comments from a wide variety of perspectives: Utilities, Renewable Energy Developers, Industrial Customers, Environmental Groups, Clean Coal Technology Providers, and Consumer Groups.

The rules were set in motion by passage of Ohio’s comprehensive Energy Legislation (SB 221) which includes provisions designed to promote alternative and renewable energy development.  The legislation includes both an Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) and a more traditional Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS). 

While the Legislation was very complex, major policy issues were left to be sort out through rule promulgated by the PUCO.  The comments received on the first draft of the rules for implementation of the AEPS and RPS reveal significant differences of opinion over critical issues.

Here is my critical issue list.  The rules must address squarely these issues to determine the direction of Ohio's energy policy.

1. What are "advanced energy"  resources and projects and how best to promote it?  For example, right now the rules contain no standards for what qualifies as clean coal.  Comments I submitted pointed out that a simple reduction of a few pounds from a 500 mw source that emits a 1,000 tons of pollution could still be considered a "clean coal" source.  Worse yet, the entire generation could qualify toward meeting the AEPS.  Without modification the AEPS could be rendered effectively meaningless.
2. Double counting environmental attributes- It appears from the comments that Ohio doesn't recognize this debate has been going on nationally for some time.  Many of the 26 or so states that have had RPS standards have been sorting this type of issue out.  The standard practice emerging nationally is not to allow CO2 emission reduction credits to be separated from a Renewable Energy Credit (REC).  Allowing otherwise distorts the voluntary CO2 and REC markets.
3. How much teeth does the RPS have?  Many comments were submitted that the rules would grant the PUCO too much discretion to waive compliance with the RPS standard based upon a "act of god" (force majeure).  Also, SB 221 allowed compliance with RPS benchmarks to be waived if electric rates rise as a result of the RPS by more than 3%.  But how you measure the 3% increase is critical to determining whether there truly will be a RPS requirement in Ohio.  It seems the rules have to answer the question-are we serious about having an RPS standard in Ohio?

 (a summary of the major comments on the AEPS and RPS by clicking on "continue reading" below)

(photo: Kevin Dooley/everystockphoto.com)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported on CNN, the Senate is debating how or whether to legislatively restore the CAIR program that was struck down in Court.  EPA still has a week or so to decide whether to appeal, but all bets are that Congress needs to act in order to save the program.

The game of chicken centers around whether the entire program should be restored, meaning reductions in Phase I set to take effect in 2009/2010 and Phase II which is to take effect 2015.  The White House insists on both Phase I and Phase II.  (proposed CAIR legislation) Senate Democrats, who have long been unhappy with the strength of the CAIR program are talking like they are only willing to put in place Phase I and then work on long term legislation for a stronger program.

President George W. Bush is "pushing for a full codification of CAIR," Carper told reporters. "That just ain't gonna happen. I think they may not be able to get what they want, but they can get what we all need."

But the White House has allies in the U.S. Senate. In a sign of the ongoing standoff, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., introduced a bill Thursday that would restore the full program instead of just the first phase.

"Options to quickly reinstate Phase I CAIR followed by tighter legislation do not save as many lives as the full CAIR fix until eight to 20 years from now; that means 6,500 to 41,000 more lives will be lost mostly in the next three to six years," according to a statement released by the lawmakers.

With only a few week before Congress is set to adjourn, there does not appear to be much time to resolve the drama.  With so much at stake and the chaos that will ensue if no type of fix is adopted, its hard to believe no action will be taken.  But as long as the White House insists on reinstatement of the whole program it appears likely there will be no resolution.  The Eastern State, Democrats, Environmental Groups and even some of the Utilities believe too strongly CAIR is a weak program.  If this was not the case, Congress would have passed Clear Skies-the legislative precursor to CAIR. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

With very little fanfare, the Department of Commerce put on their web page two documents that change the policy interpretations of the prevailing wage requirements. The "policy interpretation" is controversial.  As reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Republican controlled House and Senate will likely be discussing ways to block the change.

What are Prevailing Wage laws? To offset the low bid public contract requirement,  the ""prevailing wage" law requires wages commonly paid to construction workers in a particular region will determine the minimum wage paid to the same type of workers employed on publicly funded construction projects. (For additional background view the extended entry below)

The Strickland Administration is claiming that the release of the Commerce Department's new guidance document on prevailing wage is a "simple clarification" of existing law.   The spokesman for the Governor said the law was simply "misapplied" to two situations, one of which is brownfield redevelopment projects.  However, many view it as a broad expansion of the applicability of prevailing wage that could drive up construction costs. 

Strickland Administration Frames the Debate: "In recent years there has been no clear approach used by the Department when determining whether publicly-funded construction activity is so intertwined with private construction activity that the activity constitutes a single "project" (triggering prevailing wage) and when they are sufficiently "separate and unrelated" that they constitute separate projects, one publicly supported (which triggers prevailing wage) and one privately financed (which does not trigger prevailing wage).

THE ISSUE: When a Clean Ohio grant pays for remediation work and demolition but the rest of the project development is privately financed, then what portion is covered by prevailing wage?

FROM ADMINISTRATION'S NEW POLICY STATEMENT:  Whenever a public entity contributes funding or other direct support (e.g.-public land) to a project, even an otherwise privately-financed project, prevailing wage must be paid to the workers on the project.

RAMIFICATION ON BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS:  Under the Administration's new policy, prevailing wage will apply to all construction work at a site receiving Clean Ohio funds whenever an end-user is identified.  Therefore, if the Clean Ohio grant application includes a commitment to use the site by a new tenant or developer, prevailing wage applies to all construction at the site work.  If no end-user is identified in the application, prevailing wage only applies to remediation work at the site.

DISCUSSION:  It simply is a false distinction to apply prevailing wage on the basis of whether an end user has been identified.  Under Clean Ohio guidelines, grant funds can only pay for :

• environmental remediation (including asbestos abatement)
• demolition
• a portion of the purchase cost of the property (optional under end user track). 

The Clean Ohio guidelines forbid expenditure on building improvements or infrastructure improvements.   If it is illegal to use to program funds for this work, how can prevailing wage be deemed to apply?

Developers will have to run the numbers.  By choosing the "development ready track" (no end-user), applicants can only seek $2 million in state funds versus $3 million for end-user projects.  Developers will be calculating whether overall project costs exceed the extra $1 million available if prevailing wage applies.  Some may say that's acceptable, but if makes less brownfield projects viable that is not a good result for Ohio's cities.

It seems questionable that the Administration can make such a broad change in application of the prevailing wage through a simple "policy interpretation."  Legal challenges or legislative action seems inevitable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported in various newspapers, several states have moved forward with the next round of climate change litigation. The States have sued U.S. EPA arguing that the Agency illegally refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from refineries. 

Thelen's Climate Law Update, had a recent post discussing the lawsuit:

New York, California and 10 other states launched the latest lawsuit this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Although the document itself was bare-bones, officials said it's focused on the failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adopt regulations known as New Source Performance Standards to control pollutants blamed for causing global warming.

Lawyers working for California Attorney General Jerry Brown told Climate Law Update the case would draw legal support from last year's landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision last year. In that ruling the Supreme Court held the EPA had the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases if it found they endangered human health or welfare.

So far, as Climate Law Update has reported, government officials have balked at such a move, calling the law "ill-suited" to controlling such emissions, and they have launched a lengthy effort to study the issue.

U.S. EPA pronounced that the Clean Air is "ill-suited" for regulation of GHGs when it issued its proposed rulemaking on regulation of greenhouse gases under the Act.   U.S. EPA's rulemaking is an analysis of the whether and how GHGs could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act. 

In U.S. EPA's latest action, refusal to regulate GHG emissions under the NSPS (new source performance standards), U.S. EPA asserted:

1. The Clean Air Act does not mandate U.S. EPA regulate GHGs under the standard
2. The Agency should be allowed to proceed with a more deliberate and thoughtful process in developing greenhouse gas regulations, then simply incorporating regulations as it develops source specific rules
3. Regulating GHG under NSPS could require the Agency to develop regulations for other categories of sources and under several other parts of the Act.

While U.S. EPA may prefer a more deliberative process and a comprehensive approach, it does not prevent Courts from interpreting the Act to require regulation and force application on a case by case basis. As an example, we have already had one Court determine the Clean Air requires analysis of greenhouse gases during the permit process.

There is no doubt the wave of climate change litigation has not even crested. It is also certain that the Clean Air Act structure does not mesh well with regulation of greenhouse gases.  In fact, some of the most complicated provisions in the Clean Air Act, such as New Source Review, are overly complicated when applied to criteria pollutants (SO2, NOx, PM)  However, as long as Congress and U.S. EPA delay comprehensive action on climate change, we are likely to construct climate change regulation by default and in piecemeal fashion. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Federal hazardous waste regulations (RCRA) have long been referred to as management from "cradle to grave."  In order meet this management principle, the regulations require detailed paper work and reporting from both small and large businesses. 

Failure to maintain the proper paper work can result in significant penalties or even change your regulatory status which will have even greater implications.  Just in 2008, Ohio EPA Division of Hazardous Waste Management (DHWM) has taken 24 formal enforcement actions that included assessment of civil penalties.  Those penalties have ranged from $4,000 to $75,000.  Many of the actions were against small to medium sized businesses.

In addition, hazardous waste enforcement cases will often be reported in the newspaper, even in the small town local newspaper.  If you want to avoid the bad publicity and a costly fine, it pays to review your company's paper work practices. 

A recent EHS blog post provided a good example of the dangers of missing paperwork. 

But in the absence of any documentation that showed the facility never generated more than 2200 lbs of waste in a calendar month, the inspector assumed incorrectly that the facility generated all the wastes that were shipped out in August of 2001 in that month. [shipped out more than 2200 lbs in the month] The reality was that the wastes in the two shipments made in August had been accumulated over the past several months.

The fact the company did not maintain good records resulted in the inspector citing them for being a Large Quantity Generator (LQG) even though in reality the company was a Small Quantity Generator (SQG).  Without the proper records, the inspector's conclusion becomes difficult to refute.

Ohio EPA has identified the most frequently cited RCRA violations in Ohio.  Reviewing the following list of frequent  categories of violations is a good place to start in determining if your company is property managing hazardous waste. 

• Waste Determination- The regulations require all waste to be evaluated.  This is often an area overlooked by businesses. Failing to evaluate just one barrel of waste can result in a citation. Ohio EPA developed a handy fact sheet that is worth reviewing to get yourself familiar with these requirements.
• Annual Reports-  All LQG must submit a report by March 1st for the preceding year.  Review your files to makes sure you have submitted annual reports. 
• Container Management- Must inspect your hazardous waste storage areas at least once a week and maintain a log documenting those inspections.  Ohio EPA has provided a hazardous waste storage inspection log sheet that can be used to maintain your records.
• Emergency Equipment Inspections- SQG and LQG must maintain a log of inspections showing all emergency equipment (fire suppression, spill containment, alarms) were inspected as recommended by the manufacturer or supplier of the equipment.  Ohio EPA also has a emergency equipment inspection log sheet you can use to maintain these required records.
• Used Oil Storage-  All containers use to store used oil must be properly labeled with a sign that says "used oil."  Using terms like "hazardous waste" or "waste oil" is not sufficient.
• Large Quantity Tank Systems-  All LQG's that use tanks to store hazardous waste must inspect the tank once "each operating day."  A log of inspections must be maintained. According to an Ohio EPA fact sheet, this means each day the tank is in use.  Even if workers are not on-site seven days a week.

(photo from flickr: Ashe-Villian)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks