DEP Approves Hazleton Creek Properties’ Project with Additional Environmental Safeguards
Company Receives Approval to Operate Under Existing General Permit
HARRISBURG -- The Department of Environmental Protection today approved a project by Hazleton Creek Properties that will use processed construction and demolition debris, as well as regulated fill, to reclaim the Mammoth strip pit in Hazleton City, Luzerne County.
In approving the company’s application, the department imposed additional conditions to ensure more stringent environmental protection measures.
“The company agreed to additional safeguards beyond what is required under this general permit,” said Northeast Regional Director Michael Bedrin.
The company’s application proposed mixing processed construction and demolition debris such as brick, blocks or concrete with fill material such as soil, rock, stone, dredged material and used asphalt.
Hazleton Creek Properties’ general permit requires periodic status reports, groundwater monitoring and other environmental safeguards. The additional conditions include an annual performance review of this five-year project; reporting testing data on a quarterly basis; chemically and physically testing waste at the source and as the material is received on site; identifying construction and demolition debris sources; and gas monitoring.
Hazleton Creek Properties LLC of Kingston, Luzerne County, submitted an application to DEP under the General Permit WMGR097 in August 2009. The department held a public information meeting on the proposal Nov. 16, 2009, and included a 45-day extended comment period.
General Permit WMGR097 and other supporting documents are posted at HARRISBURG -- The Department of Environmental Protection today approved a project by Hazleton Creek Properties that will use processed construction and demolition debris, as well as regulated fill, to reclaim the Mammoth strip pit in Hazleton City, Luzerne County.
In approving the company’s application, the department imposed additional conditions to ensure more stringent environmental protection measures.
“The company agreed to additional safeguards beyond what is required under this general permit,” said Northeast Regional Director Michael Bedrin.
The company’s application proposed mixing processed construction and demolition debris such as brick, blocks or concrete with fill material such as soil, rock, stone, dredged material and used asphalt.
Hazleton Creek Properties’ general permit requires periodic status reports, groundwater monitoring and other environmental safeguards. The additional conditions include an annual performance review of this five-year project; reporting testing data on a quarterly basis; chemically and physically testing waste at the source and as the material is received on site; identifying construction and demolition debris sources; and gas monitoring.
Hazleton Creek Properties LLC of Kingston, Luzerne County, submitted an application to DEP under the General Permit WMGR097 in August 2009. The department held a public information meeting on the proposal Nov. 16, 2009, and included a 45-day extended comment period.
General Permit WMGR097 and other supporting documents are posted at HARRISBURG -- The Department of Environmental Protection today approved a project by Hazleton Creek Properties that will use processed construction and demolition debris, as well as regulated fill, to reclaim the Mammoth strip pit in Hazleton City, Luzerne County.
In approving the company’s application, the department imposed additional conditions to ensure more stringent environmental protection measures.
“The company agreed to additional safeguards beyond what is required under this general permit,” said Northeast Regional Director Michael Bedrin.
The company’s application proposed mixing processed construction and demolition debris such as brick, blocks or concrete with fill material such as soil, rock, stone, dredged material and used asphalt.
Hazleton Creek Properties’ general permit requires periodic status reports, groundwater monitoring and other environmental safeguards. The additional conditions include an annual performance review of this five-year project; reporting testing data on a quarterly basis; chemically and physically testing waste at the source and as the material is received on site; identifying construction and demolition debris sources; and gas monitoring.
Hazleton Creek Properties LLC of Kingston, Luzerne County, submitted an application to DEP under the General Permit WMGR097 in August 2009. The department held a public information meeting on the proposal Nov. 16, 2009, and included a 45-day extended comment period.
General Permit WMGR097 and other supporting documents are posted at www.depweb.state.pa.us under the “Community Information” section of the Northeast Regional Office page, which is accessible by clicking on “Regional Resources.”
Guess the rhetoric about the material was more "toxic" than the material itself. Pennsylvania taxpayers paid for a franking document that was politically motivated and worthless information.
Showing posts with label Hazleton Creek Project. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hazleton Creek Project. Show all posts
Friday, March 12, 2010
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Kanjorski and Eachus Wrong on Dredge Issue- Crying Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
In recent days Paul Kanjorski and Todd Eachus have undertaken a co-ordinated partisan attack on the City of Hazleton and Mayor Lou Barletta. Eachus used taxpayer dollars to send a franking piece concerning the Hazleton Creek Properties reclamation project. He claims "I sent a letter to Secretary John Hanger requesting the permit be delayed unitl the people of our community had a chance to learn more about the health and public safety issues. Kanjo likewise sent a letter to Secretary John Hanger to reject Hazleton Creek Properties new permit application.
Here is a link to testimony and conclusions about the original dredge project that has been mischaracterized to the public by Eachus purely for partisan reasons. Mr. Eachus why are you unnecessarily employing scare tactics against your constituents?
Council Comment: There is clearly a need to promote remediation of past abuses in the area and promote new economic development. While no testimony was presented regarding Earth Conservancy, we note that when it was first created, there was much controversy and suspicion regarding its true nature and intent; similarly, some of the activities being conducted by CAN DO have met with opposition and suspicion.
In May 2005, Hazleton unveiled its proposal for Cranberry Creek, which includes a proposed $45-million open-air performing arts amphitheater. The project site is on280 acres of spoiled mine land southwest of the city. The site was home to two former landfills. Construction is planned to start in 5 years.
The plan is to reclaim the project area with Delaware River dredge mixed with cement and limekiln dust and alkaline coal combustion ash (fly ash). The use of dredge material and coal ash for land reclamation was successfully demonstrated during the Bark Camp Demonstration Project in Clearfield County.7 Based on the data produced at Bark Camp, Council feels that, with proper management and oversight, the use of dredge material and fly ash for reclamation can be an effective, safe and environmentally responsible option for addressing Pennsylvania’s abandoned mine reclamation needs. Dredge to be used for reclamation must undergo a 3-step sampling protocol; the dredge must be tested (1) before it leaves the
holding basin; (2) when it is received on-site; and (3) after it is mixed with other materials before it is placed. The dredge must meet standards that are 10% more stringent than the most conservative Act 2 standards to ensure that there is no migration to groundwater through the soil-to-water pathway.
The capacitors referred to in the testimony were identified in a newspaper article as pre-1979 electrical capacitors. They are stamped “Eleven,” identified by the EPA as a brand name for now-banned PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, listed by EPA as probable human carcinogens), and are leaking a black, smelly liquid. According to the article, a man who worked for a firm that was contracted to cover the capacitors with dirt said the area is full of them, plus garbage and barrels of chemicals. He said the area is also full of metal cylinders where borehole testing was done.
DEP has stated that the sources of the capacitors and some of the other wastes dumped on the site have been identified, and commitments have been made to remove them. Site assessment data indicates that there is little concern for continued groundwater contamination from these materials since most of the chemicals have already been flushed out through the Jeddo Tunnel.
On August 19, 2005, DEP inspected the area and took samples. No contamination was detected, and DEP shared that information with Messrs. Magill, Kaufman and Yurick. On August 24, DEP held a public information meeting on Hazleton’s proposed reclamation project; the meeting focused on the application submitted by Hazleton Creek Properties LLC of Kingston, Luzerne County, to use river dredge, cement kiln dust, lime kiln dust, coal ash and cogeneration ash for the reclamation project. On October 5, 2005, DEP approved a general permit for the company’s land reclamation project.
In December 2005, the Hazleton Redevelopment Authority and Hazleton Creek
Properties LLC signed a consent order and agreement (COA) with DEP detailing cleanup requirements under the state’s Land Recycling Program. The COA establishes cleanup standards for contamination or other environmental problems encountered during redevelopment. The agreement also details the removal of capacitors found on site and cleanup of any contaminated soils under the supervision of EPA.
Substantial oversight is required to allay concerns that new players and new techniques will only bring new problems to add to the existing ones. Many of the issues being raised are addressable through good planning, proper management and open communication.
DEP responses to Ms. Deakos’ questions are as follows:
• Under Act 2, the current owner is not responsible for any cleanup of the site as long as it does not pose a threat off site. Similarly, the City of Hazleton is not involved with the Act 2 cleanup and has no obligations to “clean up the site and be liable for any future health problems.”
• DEP observed the initial removal action and has made regular visits to the site to ensure the area remains secure. Additional capacitors and impacted soil are awaiting removal once a contract bid is approved. EPA has the overall lead on the PCB issue, and DEP has been coordinating with them.
• The state is not requiring the use of fly ash/dredge at the site; the Hazleton Redevelopment Authority and the Hazleton Creek Properties LLC want to use these materials under the Special Industrial Agreement.
• This project is being administered by DEP’s Bureau of Abandoned Mine
Reclamation (BAMR). BAMR has evaluated surface water flow and potential
impacts and designed the project to handle the surface water runoff and not cause flooding. Future permits needed for development of the site will also evaluate surface water flow and drainages.
Here is a link to testimony and conclusions about the original dredge project that has been mischaracterized to the public by Eachus purely for partisan reasons. Mr. Eachus why are you unnecessarily employing scare tactics against your constituents?
Council Comment: There is clearly a need to promote remediation of past abuses in the area and promote new economic development. While no testimony was presented regarding Earth Conservancy, we note that when it was first created, there was much controversy and suspicion regarding its true nature and intent; similarly, some of the activities being conducted by CAN DO have met with opposition and suspicion.
In May 2005, Hazleton unveiled its proposal for Cranberry Creek, which includes a proposed $45-million open-air performing arts amphitheater. The project site is on280 acres of spoiled mine land southwest of the city. The site was home to two former landfills. Construction is planned to start in 5 years.
The plan is to reclaim the project area with Delaware River dredge mixed with cement and limekiln dust and alkaline coal combustion ash (fly ash). The use of dredge material and coal ash for land reclamation was successfully demonstrated during the Bark Camp Demonstration Project in Clearfield County.7 Based on the data produced at Bark Camp, Council feels that, with proper management and oversight, the use of dredge material and fly ash for reclamation can be an effective, safe and environmentally responsible option for addressing Pennsylvania’s abandoned mine reclamation needs. Dredge to be used for reclamation must undergo a 3-step sampling protocol; the dredge must be tested (1) before it leaves the
holding basin; (2) when it is received on-site; and (3) after it is mixed with other materials before it is placed. The dredge must meet standards that are 10% more stringent than the most conservative Act 2 standards to ensure that there is no migration to groundwater through the soil-to-water pathway.
The capacitors referred to in the testimony were identified in a newspaper article as pre-1979 electrical capacitors. They are stamped “Eleven,” identified by the EPA as a brand name for now-banned PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, listed by EPA as probable human carcinogens), and are leaking a black, smelly liquid. According to the article, a man who worked for a firm that was contracted to cover the capacitors with dirt said the area is full of them, plus garbage and barrels of chemicals. He said the area is also full of metal cylinders where borehole testing was done.
DEP has stated that the sources of the capacitors and some of the other wastes dumped on the site have been identified, and commitments have been made to remove them. Site assessment data indicates that there is little concern for continued groundwater contamination from these materials since most of the chemicals have already been flushed out through the Jeddo Tunnel.
On August 19, 2005, DEP inspected the area and took samples. No contamination was detected, and DEP shared that information with Messrs. Magill, Kaufman and Yurick. On August 24, DEP held a public information meeting on Hazleton’s proposed reclamation project; the meeting focused on the application submitted by Hazleton Creek Properties LLC of Kingston, Luzerne County, to use river dredge, cement kiln dust, lime kiln dust, coal ash and cogeneration ash for the reclamation project. On October 5, 2005, DEP approved a general permit for the company’s land reclamation project.
In December 2005, the Hazleton Redevelopment Authority and Hazleton Creek
Properties LLC signed a consent order and agreement (COA) with DEP detailing cleanup requirements under the state’s Land Recycling Program. The COA establishes cleanup standards for contamination or other environmental problems encountered during redevelopment. The agreement also details the removal of capacitors found on site and cleanup of any contaminated soils under the supervision of EPA.
Substantial oversight is required to allay concerns that new players and new techniques will only bring new problems to add to the existing ones. Many of the issues being raised are addressable through good planning, proper management and open communication.
DEP responses to Ms. Deakos’ questions are as follows:
• Under Act 2, the current owner is not responsible for any cleanup of the site as long as it does not pose a threat off site. Similarly, the City of Hazleton is not involved with the Act 2 cleanup and has no obligations to “clean up the site and be liable for any future health problems.”
• DEP observed the initial removal action and has made regular visits to the site to ensure the area remains secure. Additional capacitors and impacted soil are awaiting removal once a contract bid is approved. EPA has the overall lead on the PCB issue, and DEP has been coordinating with them.
• The state is not requiring the use of fly ash/dredge at the site; the Hazleton Redevelopment Authority and the Hazleton Creek Properties LLC want to use these materials under the Special Industrial Agreement.
• This project is being administered by DEP’s Bureau of Abandoned Mine
Reclamation (BAMR). BAMR has evaluated surface water flow and potential
impacts and designed the project to handle the surface water runoff and not cause flooding. Future permits needed for development of the site will also evaluate surface water flow and drainages.
Friday, October 30, 2009
McClellan calls Gadinski's Accusations "Bogus"
That should have been the headline in today's Standard Speaker article about Hazleton Creek Properties.
In its latest "Chicken Little" attack on Hazleton Creek Properties efforts to rid our landscape of a mine scarred area a bogus claim of pH alteration is highlighted by Geologist Robert Gadinski. To the general public Gadinski's claims seem credible but trust me on this one, this report is nothing more than political hype as evidenced by the last sentence in the Standard Speaker article.
Bob, let's have a frank discussion on chemistry, soil pH, bicarbonates, salts..ohh you remeber this course don't you?
This information comes from the International Plant Nutrition Institute.
Seasonal variation in soil test results is real…and has been recognized by soil scientists for more than four decades. Sizeable fluctuations in soil test levels can occur seasonally (monthly) and are associated with changes in soil temperature and moisture, soil microbial activity, crop residue decomposition, clay mineralogy, and nutrient cycling. Shallow soil samples (0 to 2, or 0 to 4 in.) may be more susceptible to seasonal fluctuations in test results than samples collected from deeper depths.
How much variation can be expected across seasons, within a year?
Soil pH—can vary as much as ,U>0.5 to 1 pH units on poorly buffered soils, especially on the coarser textured soils. Soil pH is usually lower in dry periods and higher in wet conditions.
Extractable soil phosphorus—-may be more stable than soil pH and extractable potassium in the majority of soils. Under prolonged flooding, phosphorus associated with iron complexes can be released. When soils dry, phosphorus can be bound tightly in iron and aluminum complexes, which lowers availability to plants. Seasonal variation can be as much as 10 to 20 pounds per acre or 5 to 10 parts per million (ppm).
Extractable soil potassium—-can be affected by soil freezing and thawing, and wide variations in soil moisture. Under very dry conditions, and upon freezing, certain clay minerals can release potassium from their mineral structure. Upon re-wetting, the potassium may be bound in the clay structure. In some high clay soils, the seasonal variation can be as much as 20 to 50 pounds per acre, or 10 to 25 ppm. Older, more highly weathered soils, most often found in the southern states, may be less likely to show strong seasonal variations in extractable potassium levels. Yet, seasonal variation in extractable potassium in sandy soils can be large.
Extractable soil sulfate and nitrate—are affected by microbial activity. Release of ammonium and nitrate-nitrogen and sulfate-sulfur from organic matter slows in dry soils. Existing nitrate levels can decline when soils are saturated for extended periods, especially during warm weather. Unlike nitrate, sulfate-sulfur is not prone to atmospheric losses during saturated conditions. Soil nitrate and sulfate levels can vary more than two-fold seasonally.
One can also view this article from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Seasonal Variability of Soil pH
Seasonal changes in soil moisture, temperature, microbial activity, and plant growth can cause soil pH to vary. The interaction of the above factors and their effect on pH are not entirely understood. The seasonal effect is a result of the loss, formation, or accretion of salts during the various times of the year (Thomas, 1996). Salt concentration fluctuates as the soil wets and dries. As the soil dries, salt concentration increases, soluble cations replace exchangeable hydronium (i.e., H30+) or aluminum ions, and the solution becomes more acid. Seasonal changes in temperature affect the solubility of carbon dioxide (CO2) in water and the solution acidity. Carbon dioxide is more soluble at cool temperatures and makes the soil more acid (carbonic acid). Conversely, CO2 is less soluble in warm seasons, but microbial respiration produces more CO2, so the net effect on pH is variable. Seasonal differences in the amount of carbonate and bicarbonate ions in solution result in variable pH.
"Everything Mr. Gadinski claimed here is erroneous, untrue and an absolute misrepresentation of the facts," McClellan said/
We could also go back to fourth grade science on sesonal variaton on water pH.
So, what does pH mean for water? Basically, the pH value determines whether water is hard or soft. The pH of pure water is 7. Gadinski is telling you that the pH of the water rose to 6.9. Well the next tenth of a rise is 7.
The normal range for pH in surface water systems is 6.5 to 8.5 and for groundwater systems 6 to 8.5.
Although the report mentions the presence of arsenic one must look at the original level in the first place.
What SUFFER and CAUSE are missing is the need to fill the darn hole in and now.
In its latest "Chicken Little" attack on Hazleton Creek Properties efforts to rid our landscape of a mine scarred area a bogus claim of pH alteration is highlighted by Geologist Robert Gadinski. To the general public Gadinski's claims seem credible but trust me on this one, this report is nothing more than political hype as evidenced by the last sentence in the Standard Speaker article.
Bob, let's have a frank discussion on chemistry, soil pH, bicarbonates, salts..ohh you remeber this course don't you?
This information comes from the International Plant Nutrition Institute.
Seasonal variation in soil test results is real…and has been recognized by soil scientists for more than four decades. Sizeable fluctuations in soil test levels can occur seasonally (monthly) and are associated with changes in soil temperature and moisture, soil microbial activity, crop residue decomposition, clay mineralogy, and nutrient cycling. Shallow soil samples (0 to 2, or 0 to 4 in.) may be more susceptible to seasonal fluctuations in test results than samples collected from deeper depths.
How much variation can be expected across seasons, within a year?
Soil pH—can vary as much as ,U>0.5 to 1 pH units on poorly buffered soils, especially on the coarser textured soils. Soil pH is usually lower in dry periods and higher in wet conditions.
Extractable soil phosphorus—-may be more stable than soil pH and extractable potassium in the majority of soils. Under prolonged flooding, phosphorus associated with iron complexes can be released. When soils dry, phosphorus can be bound tightly in iron and aluminum complexes, which lowers availability to plants. Seasonal variation can be as much as 10 to 20 pounds per acre or 5 to 10 parts per million (ppm).
Extractable soil potassium—-can be affected by soil freezing and thawing, and wide variations in soil moisture. Under very dry conditions, and upon freezing, certain clay minerals can release potassium from their mineral structure. Upon re-wetting, the potassium may be bound in the clay structure. In some high clay soils, the seasonal variation can be as much as 20 to 50 pounds per acre, or 10 to 25 ppm. Older, more highly weathered soils, most often found in the southern states, may be less likely to show strong seasonal variations in extractable potassium levels. Yet, seasonal variation in extractable potassium in sandy soils can be large.
Extractable soil sulfate and nitrate—are affected by microbial activity. Release of ammonium and nitrate-nitrogen and sulfate-sulfur from organic matter slows in dry soils. Existing nitrate levels can decline when soils are saturated for extended periods, especially during warm weather. Unlike nitrate, sulfate-sulfur is not prone to atmospheric losses during saturated conditions. Soil nitrate and sulfate levels can vary more than two-fold seasonally.
One can also view this article from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Seasonal Variability of Soil pH
Seasonal changes in soil moisture, temperature, microbial activity, and plant growth can cause soil pH to vary. The interaction of the above factors and their effect on pH are not entirely understood. The seasonal effect is a result of the loss, formation, or accretion of salts during the various times of the year (Thomas, 1996). Salt concentration fluctuates as the soil wets and dries. As the soil dries, salt concentration increases, soluble cations replace exchangeable hydronium (i.e., H30+) or aluminum ions, and the solution becomes more acid. Seasonal changes in temperature affect the solubility of carbon dioxide (CO2) in water and the solution acidity. Carbon dioxide is more soluble at cool temperatures and makes the soil more acid (carbonic acid). Conversely, CO2 is less soluble in warm seasons, but microbial respiration produces more CO2, so the net effect on pH is variable. Seasonal differences in the amount of carbonate and bicarbonate ions in solution result in variable pH.
"Everything Mr. Gadinski claimed here is erroneous, untrue and an absolute misrepresentation of the facts," McClellan said/
We could also go back to fourth grade science on sesonal variaton on water pH.
So, what does pH mean for water? Basically, the pH value determines whether water is hard or soft. The pH of pure water is 7. Gadinski is telling you that the pH of the water rose to 6.9. Well the next tenth of a rise is 7.
The normal range for pH in surface water systems is 6.5 to 8.5 and for groundwater systems 6 to 8.5.
Although the report mentions the presence of arsenic one must look at the original level in the first place.
What SUFFER and CAUSE are missing is the need to fill the darn hole in and now.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Eachus Feigns Concern For Fill
In an article written by Kent Jackson that appeared in today's Standard Speaker Todd Eachus tries to persuade the public that he has a genuine concern for fill material that is proposed for the Hazleton Creek pit reclamation project. He is having about as much success as Chicken Little.
Every politician says "I'll run on my record." Well, Todd here's one for you. You authored the budget and voted to decrease the Department of Environmental Protection's budget by 30% this year. That budget decrease takes it back to levels of thirteen years ago. DEP is integral in the Hazleton Creek project where you have been a vocal opponent of the project from the beginning. If you are so concerned, why as House Majority Leader, did you fail to protect their budget? There is a story about that but we will save it for another time.
"We're concerned about whether DCNR and DEP are really going to be able to do their jobs with the significant percentage cut to their budgets," Donald Welsh, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, said.
The amount budgeted for environmental programs, and the percentage decline from the prior year.
DEP total budget: $159 million, down 30.5%
- General government operations: $14.4 million, -26%
- Environmental program management: $32.7 million, -22%
- Environmental protection operations: $85 million, -17%
- Water infrastructure grants: $0, -100% (from $11.7 million
How do you square up with the voters that you are concerned about fill going into the Hazleton Creek project when you O.J. Simpsoned the budget for DEP? Eachus has been complaining about "TOXIC" material going into Hazleton Creek. Here is a link to a story that appeared in the Tuesday, August 1, 2006 edition of the Standard Speaker.
His scare tactic was called out then by Mayor Barletta, and he is once again being called out for his obstructionism.
Read the testimony by representatives of the Department of Environmental Resources about dredge and Bark Camp cited by Eachus in his article. Use the Find feature of your browser to locate the word "dredge." Eachus is disingenuous with his statements over Hazleton Creek because its owner is a supporter of Lou Barletta.
The real facts are that Todd Eachus is House Majority Leader. If he truly wanted to he could find the funds to finance a project that will place what type of fill he wants into that hole. Has he helped the City of Hazleton secure funding? Nada. Did Governor Rendell help the Hazleton Creek project? Oh yeah.
Let Todd Eachus stand on his record. How much in total has been secured for the citizens of Hazleton who you took a sworn oath to represent? What specific projects and funding went to the municipality known as the City of Hazleton secured by your efforts?
Why don't you accept this challenge? Mark McClellan is more than willing to test the soil in your back yard where your family lives and plays and compare it to the dredge used as fill. Accept his invitation. Let the public see the results. That invitation is germane to the next observation.
Eachus brought up the Bark Camp project. Here is what DEP had to say about that project.
In five years of monitoring and after more than 100,000 analyses, there were no significant organic or metal contaminants detected other than those present in the general area prior to the project's initiation.
The results are conclusive and positive: When used appropriately, this material is an extraordinarily valuable and effective tool in mine reclamation and in the remediation of acidic drainage from abandoned mines that pollute more than 2,000 miles of stream throughout the Commonwealth.
Eachus's degree is in political science, not thermomechanical analysis or geology. Nothing qualifies him to extend an opinion on this issue anymore than the First Amendment of the Constitution. While free speech allows him to speak his mind, he should respect the people in that field for their knowledge, research, and dedication.
Here is the definition of a carpetbagger- 2.An outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality. Eachus was from northern Luzerne County graduating from Wilkes Barre's Coughlin High School before seeking office in Hazleton in 1996. He is here thirteen years but wants to taint the names of families who lived generations in Hazleton and employed generations in Hazleton. Polluting the minds of people is one area DEP does not cover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)