2015-01-08 Hearing Transcript-Steven Schropshire _SMA 14-058_

Home

to bring you up on, to speed on the additional information that was provided to the Commission. Thank you. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions from staff, for staff? If not, Commissioners, any discussion? HENKEL: Mr. Chair, are we gonna hear from Mr. Shropshire again? MIYASATO: You may call him forward if you have questions. SHROPSHIRE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Steve Shropshire, and I reside at Post Office Box 1146, Hilo. Do I have—can I respond to any specific questions or I’ve also have prepared, some prepared— HENKEL: I—I have a couple of questions, Mr. Shropshire— SHROPSHIRE: --okay— HENKEL: --you know, there has been some concern about first of all, the cesspools, but I see on a response from Ms. Mikkelson that you people are going to use a State approved septic system rather than a cesspool. Is that correct? SHROPSHIRE: That’s correct, yes sir. HENKEL: And there’s also been some concern about the hazardous waste that was dumped previously, and I was wondering about your, your attempts to mitigate that situation. SHROPSHIRE: You know, I think at this point what we have are innuendos and accusations that have not been substantiated. We do, when we purchased the property, we were very concerned about the former gas station and the potential liability, and we felt satisfied with the closure report that was provided by the State of—State Department of Health. I had, I’ve since had conversations with Mr. John Peard with the State of, Department of Health, and he’s indicated to me that it’s not on a particular watch list of concern of theirs, main concerns of theirs. He did also tell me that petroleum products are not considered hazardous waste under Federal guidelines, and in most of the cases, a lot of these prod—a lot of these chemicals dissipate in the atmosphere. Having said that, we—we purchased a similar oceanfront property in Hakalau and worked with the Department of Health in mitigating, have been working with them in mitigating an arsenic issue. We’ve been transparent. We spent over a $100,000 to date. To mitigate that, we’ll probably spend another two or three hundred thousand dollars to finally resolve it. We have an approved remediation plan for that. Certainly, if there’s an issue, and incidently, you know, these additional lots that we’re proposing, aren’t, aren’t in the area that, in question. We will certainly do whatever is necessary and whatever is prudent in terms of you know further investigation, but at this point, they’re innuendos, and accusations as I said. I feel like the closure report gives me satisfaction, but I think that it would prudent for us to do some additional probing, if that answers your question. Again, our track record is that we’re, 11 EXHIBIT A