EPA/530/SW-514
««no.B
-------
LEACHATE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Case Study of the Fox Valley Solid Waste Disposal Site
in Aurora, Illinois
This report (SW-514) was written
by KENNETH A. SHUSTER
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1976
-------
An environmental protection publication (SW-514) in the solid waste manage-
ment series. Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment by the U.S. Government. Editing and technical content of this report
were the responsibilities of the Systems Management Division of the Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs.
Single copies of this publication are available from Solid Waste Information,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Since its beginning in 1965, one of the concerns of EPA's Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs (OSWMP) has been the development and use of
environmentally sound methods of solid waste disposal. OSWMP recognizes
that land disposal of wastes is an essential element in any present and future
solid waste management system, and it is necessary to ensure that these land
disposal sites do not adversely impact the environment. To this end, OSWMP
currently has four studies in the area of leachate control: (1) leachate character-
ization, production, and migration, (2) leachate damage assessment, (3) lear-h-
ate control technology, and (4) leachate administrative controls (land disposal
site permitting and enforcement programs). The goal of these projects is to
develop landfill standards or guidelines to protect our surface and ground
water resources from leachate contamination.
This report is an output of the leachate damage assessment project. It
discusses the leachate damages which occurred at a specific land disposal site.
The leachate damage assessment project examines the impacts and magni-
tude of the leachate contamination problem in the United States on local,
regional, and national levels. This includes the identification of the types and
locations of sites causing leachate damages, the types and extent of leachate
damages, and the comparison of damage costs and risks to control costs. The
leachate damage assessment project establishes the need, if any, for leachate
control standards or guidelines, and gives insights into what controls are
necessary. This project is described further in Leachate Damage Assessment;
An Approach. *
SHELDON MEYERS
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
* Leachate Damage Assessment: An Approach. Kenneth A. Shuster.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976.
iii
-------
-------
PREFACE
Leachate is contaminated water which is produced when rain or other
water passes through wastes in a land disposal site, picking up various mineral,
organic, and other contaminants. Depending on the types of wastes received
at the disposal site, leachate may contain various decaying organics, bacteria
and viruses, and heavy metals and other toxic chemicals. Unless controlled,
each ot these contaminants will migrate different distances based primarily on
the type of operation, the physical and chemical properties of the contaminants,
and the hydrogeologic conditions around the site. If allowed to migrate from the
site, leachate may contaminate ground or surface water and result in damages
such as polluted wells or fishkills. The occurrence of such damages is
directly related to the proximity of the resource to the disposal site, the direc-
tion of surface or ground water (leachate) flow, and dilution.
Past disposal practices in the United States have typically overlooked the
leachate problem, frequently favoring the use of cheaper and more remote
"waste lands" such as flood plains, quarries, sand and gravel pits, and marsh-
lands. These marginal sites tend to be more socially and politically accept-
able, as well as cheaper, when the leachate problem is ignored.
Due to the lack of ground-water monitoring around disposal sites in the
United States, the seriousness and extent of the leachate problem is unknown.
In most situations, only when wells are polluted or fish are killed, does the
problem surface and attract attention. A number of studies of leachate produc-
tion and migration at specific sites, however, has been recently completed.
Information on leachate migration from damage cases and specific site studies
coupled with general information on disposal site locations and operations in
the United States indicate that at least one-fourth and possibly as many as
three-fourths of the municipal land disposal sites in the United States have
leachate migration problems. Hopefully, as more of the older sites are
replaced by new sites which are better located, designed, and operated, these
conditions will improve.
This report is the third in a series of case studies documenting damages
caused by leachate from municipal land disposal sites. Described are the
history and type of operation, damages caused by leachate, remedial actions,
and associated costs.
-------
The author acknowledges the special assistance of Charles E. Clark
(Illinois State Environmental Protection Agency) for providing the major
information upon which this report is based, and Joyce Corry for editing the
report.
KENNETH A. SHUSTER
Program Manager
Systems Management Division
Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs
vi
-------
CONTENTS
CONCLUSIONS 1
SUMMARY 4
History 4
Damages 4
Remedial Action 4
Costs 6
HISTORY OF SITE DEVELOPMENT 7
Location 7
History and Type of Operation 7
Types and Amounts of Waste Disposed 10
Site Selection and Engineering Design 10
Hydrogeological Description of Site 11
LEACHATE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT 13
Problem Identification 13
Leachate Characterization 17
Damages 17
Litigation 22
Remedial Action 22
LEACHATE DAMAGE COSTS 25
Avoidance Costs 25
Administrative Costs 27
REFERENCES 28
SOURCES 29
APPENDIX 30
vii
-------
-------
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Aurora Fox Valley disposal site was neither located nor operated accord-
ing to currently accepted sanitary landfill practices. Although the site was
at a high elevation, it was unsuitable for landfill because it had only a thin
layer of protective soil over a creviced bedrock aquifer, and domestic wells
were located in the aquifer downgradient of the site. In 1965 the city of
Aurora contracted with the Fox Valley Disposal Company to convert the open
dump on the site to a sanitary landfill. But instead of improving the thin layer
of protective soil, the site operator stripped away the soil and placed wastes
in the resulting trench, directly on the bedrock. This enabled free channel
flow of leachate to the wells below.
2. During the period 1961 to 1965, the site was used as an open dump, appar-
ently without adverse impacts on the domestic wells below. The removal
of the thin layer of soil in late 1965 by the operator resulted in leachate
migration and well contamination. Although the trench operation apparent-
ly received more wastes than when the site was an open dump, the lack of
contamination before conversion indicates the thin layer of soil was at least
partially effective in protecting the groundwater. The leachate production
and migration could also have been enhanced by runoff collecting in the
trench and saturating the wastes rather than flowing off the site which was
located at a high elevation; by liquid and septic tank wastes received at the
site; by concentrating the wastes in the trench; or by the placement of
wastes over the old farm well which existed on the site. All of these poten-
tial explanations indicate the importance of an engineering design for land-
fill sites.
3. Because of the thin soil layer and the use of wells in the area, the State and
county had advised against the use of the site, but the city of Aurora ac-
quired the land and used the site anyway. This case demonstrates the need
for State level authority to grant or deny permits for proposed disposal
sites. Otherwise, the local political and social pressures coupled with the
pressures to locate a disposal site may result in the improper selection of
a site. State control also helps protect communities from leachate migration
from other jurisdictions (for example, in this case, from Aurora to wells in
an unincorporated area).
4. Due to the proximity of the Fox River, the extent of leachate contamination
was only about 0. 04 to 0.06 square miles.
-------
5. Seven domestic wells were polluted beyond use, and two other domestic
wells were contaminated to a lesser degree. Damages also included
plumbing and water fixtures.
6. The well owners experienced difficulty in obtaining temporary water. Use of
a National Guard tank was vetoed by the State Health Department and Gover-
nor because it might be unsanitary, despite its use by the National Guard. A
1, 000 gal tank of the Civil Defense unit was denied because it was reserved
for emergencies, and the homeowners might need it for many months.
7. The well owners went 16 months without a permanent water supply. Three
months passed before they filed a suit against the city of Aurora and Fox
Valley Disposal Company. This delay in filing was due to (1) preparations
for the suit including investigations by the State to prove the source of con-
tamination, (2) possible solution resulting from legal action by the State San-
itary Water Board initiated March 4, 1966 against the Fox Valley Disposal
Company and/or the city of Aurora to get them to correct the problem, and
(3) evidence that the Fox Valley Disposal Company and its insurance com-
pany would take full responsibility for the damages and settle out of court.
When it became apparent that neither the State, city, nor Fox Valley Dis-
posal Company would take appropriate steps to correct the problem or get
public water hooked up to the homes, the well owners filed suit. Due to
inexpiable delays, it took another six months to get a court date set and one
more month to get a decision. Then four more months passed during which
the homes were annexed by North Aurora, a contract was let to extend the
water supply to the homes, and the supply line was constructed.
8. If the State Health Department had not conducted their study to show that the
disposal site was the cause of contamination, the seven well owners prob-
ably would not have been able to afford and obtain such evidence themselves
and may not have won their Law suit.
9. The city of Aurora contract required the Fox Valley Disposal Company to
^arry liability insurance to cover all the damage liabilities of the city.
Liability insurance tends to minimize the incentives to run an environ-
mentally sound operation.
10. The impacts on the well owners included: (1) material damages including
wells and plumbing, (2) inconveniences of temporary water, torn up streets
and lawns, and repair damages, (3) lost time seeking assistance from the
State, suing the disposal site owner and operator, obtaining and using
temporary water, and making repairs, (4) psychic impact of the incon-
venience, lost time, damages, financial impact, embarrassment due to
-------
malodorous houses and the need to borrow water and bathe at the homes of
others, lack of response from the disposal site owner and operator, and
the inadequacies of the judicial process, and (5) economic impacts.
11. The disposal site operator was also impacted. The insurance company
covered the operator's liabilities but did not cover the administrative,
consulting, and operational expenses associated with attempting to correct
the problem by site alterations at the request of the State Sanitary Water
Board.
12. There was apparently little the operator could do to correct the problem
short of removing the wastes to another site (closing the site) or retro-
fitting the existing site with an impermeable liner. No other site existed
so the State Sanitary Water Board could not realistically shut the site down.
To shut the site down would not have been wise anyway because the ground
water was already contaminated which merely closing the site would not cor-
rect, and the size of the site meant a very high cost to correct the problem
even if another site existed. The cheapest remedial solution would have
been to require the operator to finance the development of a public water
supply to the affected homes and to permit the site to continue operating.
13. There are numerous indirect, non-market, and intangible impacts or costs
resulting from leachate damages whose values are difficult to identify or
determine. In this case, the economic impact (out-of-pocket expenditures)
was at least $115,000 or $16,430 per home. But this cost does not include:
the cost to the well owners of phone calls, letters, and trips for meetings
related to the contamination; the inconvenience, lost time (including lost
work time), and psychic costs; the cost of temporary water (including
bottled water, laundromat costs, and water obtained from the homes of
friends); administrative expenses incurred by the National Guard, Civil
Defense, and bottled water companies in considering temporary water
supplies; some of the plumbing fixtures; the value of the road which was
never properly resurfaced; the net effect of the new tax burden versus
benefits received as a result of the forced annexation by North Aurora;
the expense of water consumption over the years over the expense of elec-
trical consumption of the well system; the costs to the State Sanitary Water
Board for their deliberations, communications, and litigation considera-
tions; administrative, consultant, and legal costs incurred by the Fox
Valley Disposal Company, city of Aurora, and the insurance company; or
the costs incurred by the Fox Valley Disposal Company to attempt to correct
the problem. It also does not include the value of the damaged wells (about
$7,000).
-------
SUMMARY
History. In 1959, Kane County requested the State of Illinois to evaluate
a proposed landfill site in Aurora Township near State Highway Route 25 and the
Fox River. The State Geological Survey advised against the use of the site,
concluding that "pollution of presently used ground water aquifers can occur
from the proposed landfill" since the site has only a thin layer of soil over a
creviced bedrock aquifer. The county in turn would not approve the site.
Despite this opposition, the city of Aurora purchased and annexed the land
in 1961 to circumvent the existing county and State authorities. The city
used the site as an open dump from 1961 to late 1965 when it contracted with
the Fox Valley Disposal Company to operate a landfill on the site. Fox Valley
Disposal Company proceeded to dig a trench to the bedrock and to fill it with
waste. As a result, runoff collected in the trench and saturated and leached
the waste (Table 1).
Damages. Within two months, unftltered leachate migrated from the site
and polluted seven residential wells between the landfill and the Fox River in
exactly the manner predicted by the State Geological Survey. The wells con-
tained strong, black, odorous leachate and were totally unusable. The
leachate damaged sinks, faucets, and other plumbing fixtures. The seven
residents who owned these wells went 16 months without household water. Two
other nearby wells experienced increases in various constituents to a lesser
degree and were not immediately abandoned.
Remedial Action. The city of Aurora disclaimed any responsibility for the
well contamination, saying that if the disposal site were indeed the source, it
was the fault of the Fox Valley Disposal Company, the operator. The seven
affected residents had to sue the Fox Valley Disposal Company and the city of
Aurora to get remedial action. In the meantime, they had to maintain a tempo-
rary water supply through such means as buying bottled water, collecting rain
water, and showering at the homes of friends or relatives. The State Depart-
ment of Public Health took at least 59 water samples on 17 different days, took
water levels to determine ground water flow, drilled test wells, and used a
fluorescein tracer which proved conclusively that the disposal site was the
source of well contamination. The clincher was the application of the
fluorescein on the disposal site which appeared in one of the domestic wells
about 2-1/2 weeks later. The Fox Valley Disposal Company had insurance to
cover its own liability, and the city's contract with Fox Valley Disposal re-
quired insurance to cover the city's liability, including legal fees.
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF CITY OF AURORA/FOX VALLEY
DISPOSAL SITE LEACHATE DAMAGE CASE
Type of operation
open dump, landfill
Location
on bedrock
Years of operation
1961-1972
Types of wastes
residential, commercial, indus-
trial, septic tank pumpings
Size of operation
Acres
Peak annual tonnage
Waste thickness (ft)
22 (8.8 ha)
68,000 (61,200 t)
55 a6.8 m)
Annual precipitation (in. /year)
37 (94 cm)
Extent of contamination
0. 04 to 0. 06 mi2 (0.10 to 0.15 km2)
Damages
7 residential wells; home fixtures
Remedial actions
wells abandoned; public water
supplied; fixtures replaced
Litigation
yes, $54,000 award
Costs
Value of damaged resources (wells) $ 7, 000
Damage costs (e.g. clothes, fixtures) 5,250 +
Corrective costs ?
Avoidance costs 33,000 +
Administrative costs 76,750 +
Total costs (excluding value of wells) $115,000 +
Cost per home affected (excluding value
of wells) 16,430 +
Status
concluded
-------
The lawsuit resulted in a directed verdict in which the jury awarded
3,000 to the seven plaintiffs to cover damages and the installation of a public
drinking water supply. This amount was reset by the judge to $54,000. Due
to the drudgery and nuisance of using bottled water and the facilities of others,
having rancid toilets, and so on, time was of the essence in getting drinking
water for the plaintiffs. Because of this, and because of limited funds to pur-
sue an appeal for a higher amount (the plaintiffs were from low- to moderate-
income homes), the plaintiffs settled with the insurance company for the
$54,000.
Costs. An incomplete tabulation of the damage costs directly attributable
to the well contamination amounted to $115,000. This includes the $54,000
awarded the plaintiffs which covered the water supply pipeline from North
Aurora, the individual hookups, replacement of some plumbing fixtures, and
legal fees. The $115,000 also includes an estimated $61,000 investigative
expense incurred by the State. Not recovered by the plaintiffs and not included
in the $115,000 are the costs of such items as bottled water, laundromat use,
water used at the homes of others, some plumbing fixtures, some administra-
tive expenses, lost time, and inconvenience.
-------
HISTORY OF SITE DEVELOPMENT
Location. The city of Aurora, in Kane County, is about 35 miles west of
Chicago. The Fox Valley Disposal Company landfill, on city land north of
Aurora, is about 500 feet east of the Fox River, and next to State Route 25
(Figure 1).
History and Type of Operation. On September 18, 1959, the Kane County
Planning Department director requested the State Sanitary Water Board and
Health Department in Springfield to evaluate five potential landfill sites in the
county. This request was forwarded on September 24 to the State Geological
Survey in Urbana^, which responded in a four-page letter dated October 6.3
The Aurora site was one of the five sites evaluated; it was determined to be
unsuitable because of shallow soils over bedrock (Figures 2 and 3).
... The Soil Survey Map shows this area to contain yellow-gray
silt loam to a depth of 10 to 40 inches. Our geologic map classifies
the underlying material as (coarsely granular) outwash... .Dolomite bedrock
is present beneath the unconsolidated material at depths ranging from about
10 to 40 feet and is quarried about one-half mile north.... Ground water
supplies in this vicinity are obtained chiefly from solution channels and
crevices in the dolomite bedrock.
Locally the gravel deposits may extend to the shallow bedrock mak-
ing it one continuous water-bearing unit.
If, as seems likely, gravel is present below the landfill site,
it is probable that, at times, seepage from the landfill would des-
cend through this permeable material into the dolomite bedrock.
Once into the bedrock, the seepage would no longer undergo any
filtering action and would move in response to hydraulic gradients.
The exact direction and distance of movement is difficult to predict,
however, influencing factors on the direction of this movement
would be the Fox River....
In summary, pollution of presently used ground water aquifers
can occur from the proposed landfill. *
On October 14, 1959, less than one month after the five-site evaluation
request, the State Sanitary Water Board forwarded the evaluations to Kane
County with a cover letter stating that "none of the five potential landfill sites
are completely satisfactory," and only one site (not the Aurora site) "could
be used after adequate evaluation.... (to) determine the number of shallow wells
in the area... "4
-------
21. TOLLWAY
PLAZA
- .'/'
27.
WOODLAND
20. -^
STAHL100"
GRAVEL PIT '
INSULATION CO.
(DYE PUT IN ON
x/3/1/66) \
V, vw
ROAD^ON FILL
,^ OLD DUMP
.STULL
2. WARNES*
VALENTINE
4. SHERWIN
5. BAKERY x
6. BRACKETT
7. QUILHOT x
8. KLECKER
9. KOSTKA
10. NICKELS
\
12. WALS
71
x 19.C.JOHNS
PONDED WATER
LEVEL (B)
ST. JOSEPH
CEMETERY
13. SIMMONS J x
\ 14. KOEMPGEN
15. WAGON WHEEL
17. CEMETERY WELL
x 18. FREEMAN
YOUNG
RIVER
ELEV. (b)
APPROX. SCALE : 1" = 500'
Figure 1. Fox Valley Disposal Company /City of Aurora Disposal Site
and Wells in the Area (March 1, 1966).
-------
Figure 2. Layered Dolomite at Gravel Pit Near Aurora Fox Valley
Disposal Site Which is Visible in the Background (1975).
Figure 3. Closer View of Dolomite Bedrock Which Underlies
the Aurora Landfill (1975).
-------
Despite these determinations, the city of Aurora purchased the site in
1961, strip-annexed it to the city, and used it as an open dump until the latter
part of 1965, when it was leased to the Fox Valley Disposal Company for the
operation of a landfill. Between November 1965 and January 1966, Fox Valley
Disposal excavated a large trench on the site and deposited wastes in it
(Figure 1). Site investigations by the State in February, 1966, revealed that
a portion of the trench (B, Figure 1), and another area within the site 'A,
Figure 1) contained a considerable amount of ponded water. A house and a
well on the site, used by the caretaker when the city operated the dump, was
bulldozed out either late in the city-operated period, or soon after Fox Valley
Disposal Company took over. The house and well were evidently located in the
area of ponded water 'A).
The trench dug by Fox Valley Disposal Company removed any attenuating
soil or soil barrier, and collected runoff which saturated the wastes in the trench.
This produced leachate which ran directly into the unprotected creviced rock
aquifer. The demolished well on the site may have also accelerated the flow of
leachate from the site. Within two weeks after a major thaw in January, seven
residential wells became contaminated by unfiltered leachate, and two other
domestic wells experienced a significant but lesser degradation in quality.
Types and Amounts of Waste Disposed. No records on the amount of
waste disposed at the site were located. The dump/landfill received residen-
tial, commercial, industrial, and septic tank pumpings from the city of Aurora
and from private haulers in the area. The population of Aurora increased
from 63, 715 in 1960 to 74,182 in 1970. Assuming 3. 5 pounds of waste per
capita per day for 1961 and 5.0 pounds per capita per day for 1970, the landfill
received about 41,000 tons of waste in 1961 and 68,000 tons in 1970. A cumu-
lative total of about 235, 000 tons by 1966, and 545, 000 tons by 1970 had been
disposed in the site. The final height of the site was about 45 to 60 feet above
grade (Figures 4 and 5).
Site Selection and Engineering Design. The disposal site operation con-
sisted of a series of blunders. As previously discussed, the site was evalu-
ated by the Illinois State Geological Survey in 1959 and determined to be a
poor site hydrogeologically. Despite this finding, the city of Aurora pur-
chased the land in 1961 for use as a city dump and leased the site to the Fox
Valley Disposal Company in 1965 to operate a landfill. No engineering design
was done, and the site was not properly operated. Based on the 1959 study,
the removal of topsoil by conversion to trench disposal maximized ground water
pollution. The use of the trench method collected runoff and saturated the
wastes. Placing wastes over an existing well without sealing it off caused free-
channel flow to the aquifer.
10
-------
Hydrogeological Description of Site. As discussed in the State Geological
Survey evaluation, the site was covered by 10 to 40 inches of yellow-gray silt
loam. Beneath this loam were coarsely granular outwash materials which
covered the creviced dolomite bedrock. The silt loam layer was the only layer
with sufficient attenuation properties to help prevent contaminants from enter-
ing the ground water. At the bedrock level, water and leachate flowed freely
through channels with little or no filtering. The disposal site was above the
Fox River flood plain at from 20 to 60 feet above the normal river level (Fig-
ure 5). Between the dump and the Fox River, downgradient from the landfill,
were the residential homes and wells which were contaminated. The flow of
leachate down to the residential wells may have been accelerated by a former
well on the site.
Figure 4. View of the Completed Aurora Landfill Showing That
It Is Approximately 45 to 60 Feet Above Grade (1975).
11
-------
TOP VIEW
RIVER
RIVER
650 ' ROUTE 25
CROSS-SECTION A-A'
WELLS
ROUTE 25
CROSS-SECTION B-B'
APPROX. FINAL
ELEVATION (1975)
WELLS V
ROUTE 25
CROSS-SECTION C-C'
UJ
_i
Ul
RIVER WELLS ^ ROUTE 25
SCALE
I I I
0 200 400 FEET
Figure 5. Top and Cross-sectional Views of the City of Aurora
Disposal Site, Showing Surface Contours (1964).
12
-------
LE AC HATE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Problem Identification. Apparently, the first taste and odor problem was
observed in the domestic wells downgradient of the landfill shortly after a major
thaw which occurred in January 1966. On February 2, 1966, Mr. Thomas E.
Philbin (Regional Engineer, Illinois Department of Public Health, Aurora)
received a telephone call from State Representative Jack Hill reporting that
an odor problem was affecting several private wells north of Aurora, and
directly west of the disposal site operated by the Fox Valley Disposal Company
(Figures 6 and 7, Appendix). On February 3, Mr. Philbin visited the four
homes which were apparently involved and collected water samples for analy-
sis. All samples were clear, but three exuded a characteristic odor of decom-
posing garbage. On February 14, prior to receiving the completed analyses,
one of the residents brought a water sample to the Aurora office which was
black in color and very odorous. The completed analysis of the original
samples confirmed extensive biological as well as chemical pollution in all
four samples.
On the basis of this apparent gross water pollution and the implication of
the refuse disposal site, Mr. Charles E. Clark (Sanitary Engineer, Illinois
Department of Public Health, Springfield) joined Mr. Philbin and
Messrs. James Hacket, George Hughes, and Ron Landon of the Illinois
Geological Survey on February 17, to survey the area. More water samples
were taken of the contaminated wells and other wells in the area around the
refuse disposal site to determine the extent of contamination, to provide back-
ground chemical and biological data from unaffected wells, and to establish the
static ground water gradient. These samples revealed that a total of eight
wells were polluted, although three of these had no odor. At the time of the
survey on February 17, the water in both areas of the site had been frozen solid
for more than a week. The samples collected on February 17 from the original
four wells all indicated decreased pollution because of the freeze. Further
samples were collected by Mr. Clark on February 21, and by Mr. Philbin on
February 24, mostly from additional wells.
On March 1, Mr. Clark, Mr. Ray from his department, and
Messrs. Hughes and Landon revisited the site and ran levels on all the wells
which could be sounded, on standing water at the site, and on the river (Table 2).
The static water level elevations that were obtained showed that the ponded
water and the water in the test holes drilled between Route 25 and the disposal
site were higher than the water in the polluted wells. The ground water gra-
dient was determined to be from the disposal site west to the river. The high-
er levels, relative to the other wells, reported for wells 0 and 3 (unverified
13
-------
Figure 6. View From the Aurora Landfill Toward the Homes
Which Were Contaminated by Leachate From the Site (1975).
Figure 7. More of the Seven Homes Contaminated by Leachate
From the Aurora Landfill (1975).
14
-------
TABLE 2
WELL AND WATER LEVEL DATA
Well
or
site
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
Tl
T2
River elev. (a)
River elev. (b)
Ponded water (a)
Ponded water (b)
Elevations
Ground Static
level level
Date 3-1-66 Type Depth Comments
Drilled Reported to flow.
1946 Drilled 46 Casing head buried.
Pitless adapter.
1946 640.2 628.5 Drilled 60 Pressure system and
hand pump.
very Dug Spring ted - flowing.
old First well with odor.
1962 Drilled 60
May not have well.
Owned by owner of #6.
Drilled In pit.
Drilled 75 Bad taste early Feb.
Odor started about
Feb. 16-17.
643.0 635.8 Drilled Pressure and hand
pump.
Drilled Buried,
641.0 628.0 Drilled In pit.
Drilled
Drilled 90
640.0 626.5 Drilled Inside tavern - head
not sealed.
655.3 645.9 Hand pump on well
head.
Drilled Hand pump on well
head.
1947 679.1 647.0 Drilled 100 In pit
Drilled 110 Two pipe jet in pit.
casing
Drilled Casing head buried.
Drilled Submersible pump -
pitless adapter.
655.4 638.6
655.8 639.2
626.5
626.0
646.7
647.7
15
-------
discharging overflow) and measured in well 8, suggested that these three wells
may have been interconnected with another aquifer of higher pressure.
On March 1, it was observed that a massive thaw was occurring at the
disposal site, and that the grossly polluted standing water in Area A appeared
to be falling. Fluorescein dye was placed in the water to trace its flow. Six
hours later, it was observed that the water level in this area had fallen 4 to 6
in., while the level in Area B had not changed. Prior to leaving the area,
the observation team requested all residents who had polluted wells to leave a
tap open and periodically check the water for any presence of dye. On
March 17, the owner of well No. 7 reported the dye had shown up in the well
water. Samples collected on March 17 and on March 22 confirmed the presence
of the dye in a diluted concentration.
To further confirm the source of contamination, two test wells were
drilled on the highway right-of-way between the disposal site and the contami-
nated wells during the week of March 21, 1966. Test well No. 1, in direct line
between the alleged source of contamination and the most heavily contaminated
wells, was found to be grossly contaminated by landfill leachate. Black light
lab tests revealed extensive fluorescence, indicating the presence of the dye
(the sample was so black that no dye could visually be observed). Test well
No. 2, located in line with the northernmost and least contaminated wells, was
contaminated to a considerably lesser degree, but sufficiently to be impotable.
Asa result of Sanitary Water Board action against the landfill operator in
March, some physical changes were made at the site, including the elimination
of the standing water in Area A. Samples collected on April 25 and 26 showed
increased contamination in wells No. 0 and 3, with only a slight decrease in
well No. 7. Because of these findings, the Sanitarjr Water Board recommended
legal action against Fox Valley Disposal Company in May, and routine observa-
tion was discontinued.
On May 17, the owner of well No. 9 complained that the water had developed
a disagreeable taste. A sample collected from the well on that date indicated
characteristic contamination at a higher level than found in the earlier sampling.
Investigation by Regional Engineer Philbin of a complaint on September 15,
1966 found the operator of the site to again be dumping refuse in the standing
water (B).
A complaint was received by the Department on November 14, 1966, that
the water from well No. 1 had become discolored. Samples were collected on
that date from wells No. 1, 2, and 8; these showed greatly increased contami-
nation of the wells since they were last sampled in February and March.
16
-------
Leachate Characterization. In total, nine wells were contaminated:
Nos. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. All nine wells contained constituents at
levels above the levels in the Fox River sample and the background levels in
the area. All seven wells involved in the damage suit received unfiltered
leachate which substantially exceeded the 1962 PHS or 1972 EPA drinking
water standards and were unpotable (Table 3). Particularly high were chlorides,
total solids, organic acid, hardness, sulfates, sodium, BOD, and biological
contaminants indicative of municipal wastes. The appearance and odor of the
contents of the wells were aesthetically very offensive. In comparison with
leachate found in the disposal site test wells (Table 4) and other wells in the
area (Table 5), the seven polluted wells showed strong leachate concentrations.
The other two domestic wells were contaminated with concentrations of
leachate that were lower, but significantly above background levels for the area.
No other source of such contaminants was found in the area. The BOD
levels found in wells No. 2 and 3 and test well No. 1 exceed those found in raw
sewage. The organic acid is characteristic of biological degradation not found
in raw sewage, but rather in sewage that has been partially treated. The only
source of possible sewage pollution was the trunk sewer line from North
Aurora, but it was located downgradient of the wells near the river, 300 or
more feet west of the wells. It is hydraulically impossible for sewage from this
line or water from the Fox River to flow "uphill" to the wells.
Surface water samples were taken on May 6, 1966, in response to a
reported fishkill (Table 6^. The disposal site operator had dug a ditch about
300 feet long from the waste trench to the creek to drain the trench. No dead
fish were found by the State inspector when he took the samples. The leachate
ditch was filled in upon a directive from the State, and leachate discharge into
the stream was virtually eliminated.
Flourescent dye placed in standing water on the disposal site was observed
in samples from test well No. 1 and from well No. 7, providing additional proof
of the connection between the landfill and the contaminated wells.
Damages. In summary, a total of nine wells were contaminated: Nos. 0,
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Seven of these wells (Nos. 1-8) were contaminated
beyond use. The investigations, sampling, and testing by the State proved be-
yond reasonable doubt that the nine wells were contaminated by leachate from
the city of Aurora/Fox Valley Disposal Company refuse disposal site. The
wells were located in creviced limestone strata immediately underlying the
entire area, and were at a lower elevation in the strata than the disposal site.
The wells ranged in age from 4 years to over 40 years, and all were operated
without problems until the latter part of January 1966. The pollution of the
wells coincides with the deep trench excavation which was done at the refuse
17
-------
CO
02
H
CQ
I
02
K!
,
g
s
CO
"o
o
an.
o
S
o
Q
S
1
s
3ij
£ S
i
B
a
ff
C
Z
£ ~
i-
c~
s-
I"1"
i !
0 (
to o
iH O
o s
0 0
O 1
1
~
i 1
5 S
W
.O Q
CO ^"
c- r-
o o
« 0
g S
O 1 0
i-l.-l.-l M
N in N 0) CO
g ° ° S §
m o o H ^
I S 1
III
0^0
S 2 i
O 0 0
to n in
§ s §
-r m
«
i i
1 1
« 00
i 1
? 5
CM
N O
0
S S
tO QO
<-< cs
f 1
O CQ
1 1
1 1
s §
e N
S s
0 0
t> oc
0 g
T
j j
O O
s
u?
% I
IN Cft
-*
O C>
0 C!
M (-1
U C1
* 1
i 1
§ 1
o to
(N .H
0
rH W
<='
1 1 1
' i ! I 1
e 1 1
g S § j §
O O 0
° " \ iS
O O O 0 O
tf OO ao QO to
w m i o Jg
» S ! S
i 1 1 1 !
Q CQ Cfl ffl CO
I I | | I
o o o o i>
i I I I 1
0, *=«=
S 8 1 « S
0 0 1 O O
o to i o oo
N w i n n
O N O O O
t- ri c. o m
c~
i i i
° ? 1
^ CO O
0 OD o
o o o
0 O 1
O N
s s 1
o o IS
o o
-------
02
W
OJ
tH
1-1
W
iJ
§
H
I
H
02
P-H
g
be .
_§ a.
1 I
« pa
< 2
CL, cd
o en '
^ K
d ^
EO N
< W <
19
-------
w
ft
EH
10 CO
EH
O
fe
O
cc
W
CQ
a
rt
w
EH
FH
£
1
5
&
S
CO
r-3
O
U
_0
gk'o
f-J rt
O
S
O
_o
"o
o
1
o
M U
a 's
H I
w
w
1
-C
K
S §
"3 ^
a
felt V
J ^
g
B &
S,
T3
1 "
o
1-
V *
^
! ' !
o o o
i : "
i i
000
CO 1 O
CO 1
CO 1
O CN U3
CM iH O
S« rt
O O
G o G
g g g
o o o
cj CM m
lO CD CO
o o 0
^ ^** in
CO CO rj*
10 co to
^ CO O
o o o
0 CM CD
(O O CO
o o o
CM O Tf
rH rH rH
< \ -s;
CM CM Tt*
o
|s
'S
j I j g
£
ca
o o o t
V
o o co o
rH rH O
O
CM*
o o o o
o o o o
o w o o
0000
0 0) ID 0
o o o u
0 5 CO °
S «3 CO t>
O O *rf O
CO O CM rH
lO CO LO CO
CM CO CO C~
O rH uO CM
rH O ^ 1
rH* O 1
LO CO CP ^
rH rH -^ ID
lO O CM O
CO t- C- 00
CM CM CO LO
Ol
1 1 I
1 1 1
O 1 O
A
LO rH
1
1
O O O
o o o
S ° °
0 C? 0
0 0) 0)
000
0 c> 0
O LT5 CO
LO LO in
o o o
CO CO CO
CM c- 10
rH O LO
CO CM CO
CO O CO
CM in CM
CO CM
to (M O
^ ^g rH
(M CO CO
O
1 I 1 1
1 1 1 1
O O O O
\ V
O CO O 00
CM
CM O O O
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
S cj aj S
U U U U
o o o o
o o o o
lO LO CO LO
o o ^ o
1C CD (M CO
in TJ< LO LO
CO rH CO LO
CO CO rH -f
LO GO O CO
in co -H? ~~F
en oc m LO
rH CO
O O 00 LO
rH CO C\l CO
\ \ \ -\.
CM CM CO CO
CM
1
O
LO
O
O
O
O
OJ
U
I
o
o
LO
o
(M
S
o
o
in
§
T
}
O
0
C5
o
o
o
o
I
o
o
Tf*
in
CM
CO
o
t-
o
CO
S
in
!
o
o
CM
CO
o
o
N
U
o
CO
in
o
in
CM
o
o
O)
LO
CO
S
CO
1
o
o
o
o
o
c,
rt
0)
0
o
LO
o
LO
"
CM
o
o
CO
^J
t-
1
0
o
C\l
O)
o
o
rt
0
o
o
CO
in
o
oo
t>
o
LO
S
GO*
1
1
o
V
o
o
o
o
o
cd
m
U
0
"Z,
o
a:
o
^
CO
CM
O
rH
i-O
(M
S
cn
1
O
0
o
o
o
rt
0)
O
I
o
LO
in
o
CO
-*
CO
o
GO
S
w*
i
o
o
o
o
o
o
rt
0)
U
g
o
LO
o
CM
in
CM
CO
o
o
CM
rH
!
o
A
O
o
o
o
CM*
O
CM
|
O
-------
CO
W
w
W
I
3
w
E-i
1
H
O
K
g
O
C
w
S
E
tl
o
'o
u
*C T3
O
a
S
t-,
o
*o
U
o
*o
O
3-8
11
Hardness
E
a
Q
CO ""
be --.
| ~
2
S ~
3 rt
1 ~
X *~"
*
rt
Q
o
g
3
<£
§
o
l
o
o
o
o
0
cq
1
0
i
w c
o S
^ O
CQ
ca
00
00
i
t-
c-
!
!
-
£
o
&
rt
X
u
rt
S
s
I
2
.S
i« -s a -
Ditc
0
es.
U P
a IH
e -a
a o
w o
s S
< u
21
-------
disposal site (between November 1965 and January 1966) and with adverse
weather conditions (freezing and thawing). Other wells in the area at higher
elevations and water levels than the disposal site were not contaminated. The
static water level gradient in the aquifer extends from the disposal site past
the polluted wells, to the Fox River.
Litigation. The owners of the seven grossly contaminated wells sued the
Fox Valley Disposal Company and the city of Aurora for damages in a joint
action. The trespass suit was for $1,030, 988 to cover the costs of annexing
the area to the village of North Aurora, running a water line from North Aurora
to the area and connecting the homes to it, and replacing all the plumbing fix-
tures; temporary water and nuisance costs; and legal fees.
Remedial Action. At the outset, it is significant to note that the affected
homes were in an unincorporated area outside the city limits of Aurora (which
located the landfill knowing it would probably contaminate their wells) and out-
side the city limits of North Aurora. Because of the terrain and bedrock in the
area, it was cheaper for the affected well owners to get public water from
North Aurora than from Aurora.
State Action. The State Department of Public Health and the State
Geological Survey sampled the wells, investigated the landfill operations, con-
firmed that the landfill was the cause of contamination, and made corrective
recommendations. The Department of Public Health, through the State Sanitary
Water Board and Attorney General's office, threatened to close the disposal
site down. If there had been an alternative disposal site near Aurora, the land-
fill would most likely have been shut down.
As a result of investigations by State personnel, the State Sanitary Water
Board passed a resolution on March 4, 1966, requesting the Attorney General
to file an action to enjoin the Fox Valley Disposal Company and/or the city of
Aurora from polluting the underground water with leachate from the solid
waste dump. Through a series of meetings and exchanges, the Fox Valley
Disposal Company and the city of Aurora convinced the Sanitary Water Board
at its April 5 meeting to request the Attorney General to delay taking action
pending the hiring of a consultant by Fox Valley Disposal Company and their
attempt to correct the problem. Fox Valley and their insurer also accepted
responsibility for the pollution and agreed to assist the damaged-well owners
to obtain a safe water supply.
In the absence of success in stopping the pollution or any affirmative action
to assist the well owners, the Sanitary Water Board, at its May 3 meeting,
requested the Attorney General to "proceed with the action as passed March 4,
22
-------
1966, expeditiously." In mid-May 1966 the owners of seven of the contami-
nated wells started a separate private suit to obtain a new water supply and to
recover damages.
Apparently because of the lack of a disposal alternative for the city of
Aurora and because of the private damage suit, the injunctive action was never
filed. Instead, despite the severe contamination of the ground water by
leachate, and other operational deficiencies, the site continued to operate
from 1966 to 1972 in defiance of many State laws, as evidenced by sporadic
inspection reports and violation letters and telegrams from the Illinois Depart-
ment of Public Health to the Fox Valley Disposal Company. In addition to the
pollution of wells and the continued ground water contamination, these violations
included pollution of surface waters (leachate was pumped from the trench into
a ditch which flowed into a creek and then into the Fox River), open burning
(both in a tepee incinerator and openly on the site itself), open dumping, inade-
quate fencing and control of blowing litter, refuse not covered daily and
inadequate daily and final soil covering, scavenging, and several other
offenses.
City of Aurora Action. The city of Aurora denied any wrongdoing through-
out and in the words of James Ahlgren, City of Aurora Commissioner, would
"take no responsibility for the dump and has no authority to stop pollution.
Aurora is not at fault here as we merely lease the land for the dump to the
disposal company, and the rest is up to them. They are responsible for any
pollution and they will have to stop it - not Aurora." The city lease arrange-
ment with the Fox Valley Disposal Company required Fox Valley to carry
insurance to cover all damages that might occur, including legal fees. The
lease arrangement called for Fox Valley, which received wastes from numer-
ous private haulers, to pay the city five percent of gross profit, which amounted
to $1, 200 to $1,400 per year, according to Ahlgren.
The city of Aurora also felt very confident that the State could not shut
the landfill down unless an alternative disposal site were developed, and the
city apparently did nothing to search for or to attempt to develop such an
alternative.
City of North Aurora Action. The city of North Aurora agreed to supply
public water to the homes, but the area would have to be annexed and the
homeowners would have to foot the total bill. Ultimately, this is exactly what
happened.
Actions by Owners of Contaminated Wells. The two outlying well owners
with the most diluted contamination apparently continued to use their water. It
23
-------
is unknown whether they used bottled water for drinking and cooking. However,
in one of the two homes, the husband "blew his top, " and the wife stated: "I'm
going to drink the water if it kills me."
The other seven wells were so contaminated that the well owners could
not use the water even for bathing or other uses. These seven owners had no
alternative but to sue the city of Aurora and the Fox Valley Disposal Company.
They went for 16 months without tap water. During this period they showered
at the homes of friends and relatives, collected rainwater from their roofs and
in standing pots, and used bottled water (frequently filled at the homes of
friends). They requested a National Guard water tanker from the Aurora
Armory, but Governor Otto Kerner responded in a letter that they could not use
the tanker water because it was considered unsanitary (despite the fact that
hundreds of guardsmen and soldiers used it for weekend maneuvers).
The Aurora Civil Defense coordinator checked with the Chicago office and
reported "They have a 1,000-gallon trailer tank which could be used for short
emergencies, but for something of this nature, which may take months to
resolve, they do not want their equipment tied up."
One of the affected well owners operated a small tailoring business in
the home. Before customers would enter the house the homeowner had to
apologize and explain the smell and its cause. Upon investigation, a reporter
of the Aurora Beacon-News reported "The water was as black as the ink in
this story. The odor was as strong as that of a glue factory in mid-summer."
Finally, in May, a distributor for Hinckley-Schmidt bottled water service
in Chicago installed a free dispenser in each of the affected homes and furnished
two free five-gallon bottles of water. These containers could be retained as
long as needed at no charge and refilled at the users' expense.
One of the seven plaintiff families acted as spokesman for the group.
The husband and wife spent many hours conversing with State officials, the
city, the disposal company, and lawyers in seeking remedial actions.
24
-------
LEACHATE DAMAGE COSTS
Due to difficulties in identifying and quantifying costs, the total damage
costs were not determined, but a partial tabulation amounted to $115,000 (Table 7).
Avoidance Costs. No estimate was made of the cost or value of temporary
water, including the collection of rainwater, bottled water, laundry at laundro-
mats, and showers at the homes of friends or relatives.
When it became apparent that the Fox Valley Disposal Company was unable
to correct the pollution problem, and the city of Aurora and the disposal com-
pany had no intentions of rectifying the damage they caused, seven of the
contaminated-well owners initiated legal action. In May 1966, they started a
private suit for $1,030, 000 against the city of Aurora and the Fox Valley Dis-
posal Company.
On December 1, 1966, a Kane County Circuit jury returned an $88,000
verdict against the Fox Valley Disposal Company in favor of the seven residents
whose welis had been contaminated. The trial lasted two weeks and ended the
day after the city of Aurora was dismissed as a defendant in the case.
The proof of the source of damage was so conclusive that the Court, at the
close of all the evidence in the case, directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs
and against the dump operator on the issues of liability. In other words, the
Court held as a matter of law that no reasonable mind on the jury could come
to any conclusion other than that the operation of the dump polluted the wells.
Directed verdicts are relatively rare. Because of such conclusive proof, this
is probably the first and possibly the only case in the U.S. in which a directed
verdict was given for a case where damage occurred to the underground water
strata, and hence to wells. The judge then decided the $88, 000 award was too
high and reduced it to $54,000.
Time was of the essence in getting a settlement for this case due to the
hardship and inconvenience being experienced by the seven plaintiffs due to a
lack of piped water. Partly because of their low income and their consequent
inability to support a court appeal, they decided to accept the $54,000 and get
on with the process of being annexed by North Aurora and getting hooked up to
their water supply. The insurance company representing the Fox Valley
Disposal Company icadily accepted the low settlement.
The $54,000 paid for the cost of annexation, a mainline from North Aurora,
and hookups to individual homes (estimated at $33,000), plus legal expenses.
Not covered by the plaintiffs were administrative, nuisance, and inconvenience
costs, and the costs of temporary water and associated costs.
25
-------
TABLE 7
LEACHATE DAMAGE COSTS
Cost
Tangible direct damage costs
Household piping and fixtures $ 5,250+
Replaced by court award $5,250
Not covered by court award ?
Value of the damaged wells $ 7,000
Intangible direct damage costs
Lost time ?
Inc onveni enc e ?
Psychic impacts and costs ?
Property value degradation (e.g., road
never properly resurfaced) ?
Corrective costs
Fox Valley Disposal Co. site alterations ?
Avoidance costs
Temporary water (bottled water, laundromat,
etc.) ?
Public water supply mainline and hookups $ 33,000
Cost of piped water over well water ?
Administrative costs
Seven plaintiffs (telephone, trips, letters, etc.) ?
Plaintiffs' tax increases due to annexation ?
State professional staffs $ 52,000+
State, other expenses 9,000
City of Aurora (council time, legal fees) ?
Fox Valley Disposal/Insurer (legal fees,
consultant fees, etc.) ?
Legal fees (plaintiffs) $ 15,750
Total damage costs (excluding value of wells) $115,000+
26
-------
Administrative Costs. Administrative costs incurred by the State were
substantial. About 11 professionals, from the Department of Public Health
(Springfield and Aurora), the Sanitary Water Board (Chicago office), the High-
way Department, and the Geological Survey (Naperville), participated in field
investigations. The Health Department personnel made at least 20 field trips
to the site, taking at least 54 water samples. The Sanitary Water Board made
two field trips to investigate the deliberate discharge of leachate from the waste
trench to the Fox River via pumping, a ditch, and a creek. The Highway
Department drilled three test holes on the Route 25 right-of-way. Three mem-
bers of the Geological Survey assisted in taking water levels to establish the
ground water gradient (direction of flow) in the area. These personnel were
backed up by about 12 more professionals including the lab technicians who
analyzed the 54 water samples; staff from the Governor's office, which responded
to a request for National Guard or Civil Defense temporary water; and staff
from the Sanitary Water Board and the Attorney General's office, which held at
least five hearings concerning the contamination and corrective actions, and
initiated legal proceedings to enjoin Fox Valley Disposal Company and/or the
city of Aurora from pollution of the underground water strata and wells. The
salaries for these persons for the time spent on this case is estimated to have
been $52,000 (1966 dollars) or two man-years. In addition, travel expenses,
numerous telephone calls, telegrams, rental cost of drilling rigs, lab analyses,
and secretarial support amounted to an estimated $9, 000.
The impact on the city of Aurora personnel, the insurance company, and
Fox Valley Disposal Company was not determined. However, several trips by
lawyers from all three organizations were made to Springfield, and corrective
actions were attempted by Fox Valley Disposal through regrading, surfacing
sensitive areas, and pumping and ditching the leachate. In addition, Fox Valley
Disposal Company hired a consultant to evaluate the problem and to recommend
corrective actions.
The affected residents spent many man-days attempting to get temporary
and permanent water. They attended many hearings and court proceedings and
made at least one trip to Springfield, and numerous long distance phone calls,
site investigations, and written and oral reports to State investigators.
Two local newspapers and one from Chicago investigated the leachate
problem in Aurora, including field trips. At least 17 news articles resulted.
27
-------
REFERENCES
1. Letter. C. M. Carlson, Planning Director, Kane County Planning
Department, to State Sanitary Water Board, Sept. 18, 1959.
2. Letter. C. W. Klassen, Chief Sanitary Engineer, [Illinois] State Sanitary
Water Board to State Geological Survey, Sept. 24, 1959.
3. Letter. A. J. Zeizel, State Geological Survey, toC. W. Klassen, State
Sanitary Water Board, Oct. 6, 1959.
4. Letter. C. W. Klassen, State Sanitary Water Board, toC. M. Carlson,
Kane County Planning Department, Oct. 14, 1959.
28
-------
SOURCES
Clark, C. E. Investigation of ground water pollution commencing in January
1966, to the present, in portions of the N.W. 1/4 and S.W. 1/4 of Sec. 10,
T. 38N, R. 8E, 3d P.M., Kane County [and] Supplemental report. [Springfield,
Illinois Bureau of General Sanitation], 1966. 5 p., maps, charts, notes.
(Unpublished report.)
Deposition. T. E. Philbin, in the Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial
Circuit, Kane County, Illinois, General Number 66-CI-1243, Sept. 23, 1966.
94 p.
Memorandum. O. S. Hallden, [Illinois] State Sanitary Water Board, to C. W.
Klassen, State Sanitary Water Board, Feb. 3, 1966.
Memorandum. T. E. Philbin, Regional Engineer, Illinois Department of
Public Health, Feb. 15, 1966.
Newspaper articles (17) in the Aurora Beacon-News, Aurora Star, and
Chicago Tribune. Mar. 4-Dec. 2, 1966.
Numerous other letters, memorandums, site investigation reports, water
analyses, and reports, Mar. 4, 1966-Nov. 11, 1971.
Personal communication. C. Clark, State of Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, to K. Shuster, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Feb. 11,
1975.
Personal communication. R. Eichmeier, lawyer for the plaintiffs, to
K. Shuster, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Feb. 12, 1975.
Personal communication. Mrs. K. A. Warnes, damaged-well owner and
plaintiff, to K. Shuster, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
July 24, 1975.
29
-------
APPENDIX
Chronology of Events
Sept 18, 1959 - letter from Kane County to State Sanitary Water Board
(SWB) requesting evaluation of proposed disposal site
Sept 24, 1959 - letter from SWB to State Geological Survey requesting
site evaluation
Oct 6, 1959 - letter from State Geological Survey to SWB advising
against use of site
Oct 14, 1959 - letter from SWB to Kane County advising against use of
site
1961 (?) - strip annexation of site by Aurora for use as disposal site
1965 - city of Aurora contracts Fox Valley Disposal Company
(FVD) to operate a landfill on the site. Between Nov and
Jan FVD digs trench to bedrock and dumps wastes into it
Feb 2, 1966 - State Representative Jack Hill requests State Health
Department (HD) investigate well contamination (odor)
Feb 3, 1966 - HD takes water samples from 4 contaminated wells and
investigates disposal site
Feb 14, 1966 - one well owner brings in black water sample for analysis
Feb 15, 1966 - Feb 3 lab tests received - indicative of leachate; another
contaminated well sampled
Feb 17, 1966 - HD and State Geological Survey take 5 more water
samples from contaminated wells and samples of 7 other
wells in the area. Results received at a later date
indicate leachate contamination.
Feb 21, 1966 - HD samples 2 contaminated wells and 4 other wells
Feb 24, 1966 - HD samples 2 contaminated wells and 3 other wells
30
-------
Mar 1, 1966 - HD and State Geological Survey run water level tests on
all accessible wells in the area, and sample 2 more wells.
Results show the disposal site (and ponded water on it)
are in direct line upgradient of the contaminated wells.
The ponded water is observed seeping rapidly away, so
the HD places a flourescein dye in the ponded water. The
well owners are asked to pump their wells to waste and
watch for evidences of the dye.
Mar 2, 1966 - HD samples 3 contaminated wells and 3 other wells
Mar 4, 1966 - based on data collected by the HD and State Geological
Survey, SWB passes resolution requesting and autho-
rizing the Attorney General to file an action to enjoin
the FVD and/or the city of Aurora from pollution of the
ground water and wells; copies sent to FVD and the city
of Aurora. First newspaper article on the contamination
in the Aurora Beacon-News.
Mar 10, 1966 - HD samples 1 contaminated well and 2 other wells
Mar 11, 1966 - Aurora attorney responds to Mar 4 letter saying this is
the first information his office has received on the
alleged pollution, and asking for more information.
Mar 16, 1966 - representatives of SWB, HD, and Attorney General's
office meet with attorneys for FVD and Aurora and
recommend they hire a consultant to develop corrective
actions; defendants may submit offer of compromise by
April 5 SWB meeting
Mar 17, 1966 - one of the well owners reports to HD that fluorescein dye
has been observed; water sample is taken by HD.
Fluorescence in the sample is later confirmed.
Mar 20, 1966 - Aurora City Council directs FVD to hire consulting
engineer
Mar 21, 1966 - Bureau of Highways (at request of HD) drills and cases
(week of) test wells on Rt 25 right-of-way between disposal site
and contaminated wells. HD takes 4 samples from test
wells (Mar 22 and 25). Results received later show strong
leachate and fluorescence. One contaminated well is also
sampled.
31
-------
Mar 30, 1966 - FVD attorney phones SWB and says FVD insurance co. will
assume all damages. He asks if the State has conclusive
evidence the site was at fault which it indicated it had.
He admits he thinks FVD is probably at fault, but that
an independent engineer is to be engaged for his evalua-
tion. And that FVD hesitated to take any corrective ac-
tions until the insurance co. gave its view.
Mar 30, 1966 - letter from lawyer for well owners to Governor requesting
use of a National Guard or Civil Defense water tank; he
mentions plans and bids are being obtained (expected by
June 1) for hook-up to the No. Aurora water system; that
No. Aurora will annex the area; and that experts tell him
that the SWB/Attorney General's action will not make the
wells potable again.
Apr 4, 1966 - HD memorandum cautioning on the use of fluorescein as a
tracer without confirmation of the type of fluorescene
(which the HD does not have the equipment to test)
Apr 4, 1966 - well owner meets with HD in Springfield
Apr 4, 1966 - letter from well owner to HD saying that leachate at site
was observed that day being pumped out of trench toward
creek
Apr 5, 1966 - attorney and consulting engineer for FVD appeared before
the SWB to explain corrective actions. The abandoned
farmsted well on the site was capped with 3 ft of clay and
the trench between the well and Rt 25 was filled and
capped with clay which was slopped to maximize runoff.
A pump was installed to pump leachate from the remain-
ing trench which will take 3 mo to fill. The insurance
co. position was clarified prior to contact with well owners
and corrective actions. FVD and their insurer accept
responsibility for well contamination. Based on this
report, the SWB moved to delay action on their Mar 4
decision pending a report by HD staff on whether FVD
actions would be sufficient to prevent further contamina-
tion of ground water.
Apr 25, 1966 - 2 contaminated wells are sampled
32
-------
Apr 26, 1966 - one contaminated well is sampled
Apr 1966 - in response to well owners' request, Governor denies
use of water tanks
May 3, 1966 - based on HD report, SWB requests Attorney General to
proceed with action passed on Mar 4.
May 6, 1966 - well owner reports to HD and Kane County Clean Streams
, Committee that FVD is pumping (leachate) from disposal
site into a creek which is tributary to the Fox River,
killing fish. SWB investigates and takes 5 samples from
ditch, creek upstream, and creek downstream. No
evidence of fishkill is observed, but a section of the
creek downstream from the ditch is grossly polluted by
leachate. Beyond Rt 25 the creek is clear, with fish.
FVD had dug a 4 ft deep, 300 ft long ditch, partially
through landfilled waste, to drain a 200 x 100 ft trench
being filled with waste. Leachate is flowing in the ditch
(1-2 gpm) and a pump system, although not in opera-
tion, exists from the trench to the ditch. The HD had
previously asked that no leachate be pumped to the creek.
May 6, 1966 - SWB advises FVD to fill in ditch, which it does, and dis-
charge to creek ceases.
May 12, 1966 - 7 well owners file $1, 030, 988 damage suit against FVD
and Aurora in the Circuit Court of Geneva.
May 15, 1966 - Hinckley-Schmidt (a bottled water service co. of Chicago)
provides 5 gal bottled water dispenser and 2 bottles to
each home free of charge.
May 17, 1966 - one contaminated well is sampled
Aug 3, 1966 I" HD site inspections: open burning is occurring in viola-
Sept 15, 1966 - tion of State regulations; waste is being placed in ponded
Sept 17, 1966 I water
Sept 23, 1966 - Deposition of T. Philbin of HD
Nov 15, 1966 - 3 contaminated wells and Fox River are sampled.
33
-------
Nov 30, 1966 - Judge dismisses the city of Aurora as a defendant in the
case.
Dec 1, 1966 - after a two week trial, the 7 well owners (plaintiffs)
receive a directed verdict in their favor and a jury award
of $88,000. The Judge later reduced this award to
$54,000. Attorney General's action still pending.
Apr, 1967 - unincorporated area annexed by No. Aurora and well
owners hooked up to No. Aurora water supply.
Nov 3, 1967 to - various HD site investigation reports show the site con-
Nov 11, 1971 tinued to operate in violation of State regulations, includ-
ing frequent reports of blowing litter, open burning, and
inadequate cover soil.
1972 - FVD/Aurora site officially closed.
SW-511*
«U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE- 1976-210-810:148
34
------- |