justifications: 1) "The record indicated that requiring groundwater monitoring would imposepotentially sizeable costs that may have adverse impacts on the fill operation" OPINION A1\TDORDER OF THE BOARD R12-9 at p.
3; 2) "The record does not include evidence to
demonstrate that CCDD or uncontaminated soil sites are a source of groundwatercontamination." OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD Rl2-9 at p.3; and 3) CCDD anduncontaminated soils are not classified as wastes.
Metz, P.E.
testified on
behalf of City Water, Light and Power (CWLP) that, '.Priorto passage ofP.A. 96-1416, CWLPpaid $100 ...
Allowed
Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) - application/pdf
Case Files 
