Home
FEATURE STORY
Ruben Luna
Bruce Brummel
Libby Thompson
Bill Sinn
Dave Erickson
Tom Schultz
Anna Sutton
Anonymous
Dana Weese
Bill Fleming
Nicor denies contamination issue again
Denise Crosby weighs in. Find out more.
View Gallery
Download .pdfs
Workers at the Nicor plant in Aurora believe methylene chloride was leaking into drinking water at the plant
How can your water go bad ?
Without a fairly simple device, it’s easy for polluted water to back up into your shower.
Download the page
Read More
Backflow problems have had
serious consequences in the
United States. Find out more.
Nicor Co. Information via Google
Nicor Corporate Homepage
OSHA Homepage
Story by:
Matt Hanley
Photos by:
Donnell Collins
Nicor denies contamination issue again
AURORA — In a letter sent Friday morning to The Beacon News, Nicor once again stressed that no employees were put at risk by plumbing within the company's facility at 408 S. River St. here.
More than a dozen former and current employees believe they were sickened by drinking water that was contaminated by methylene chloride, which was leaking from a boiler into the drinking water in the building.
In two past responses to The Beacon News, on Oct. 21, 2005, and again on March 1, 2006, Nicor asserted there was never a potentially dangerous plumbing system.
In Friday's response, Nicor also challenged a letter the city of Aurora sent after a site inspection of the Nicor building in October of 2003.
"There is no backflow protection on this potable water feed," the city's letter said.
After viewing the pipes around the boiler, the city plumbing inspector wrote he found the drinking water was directly connected to a chemically fed tank and that "this type of connection poses a threat to the quality of potable water for both the employees in the building and the city's water main."
Although this letter was quoted in previous Beacon News inquiries to Nicor, on Friday the company asserted for the first time that the inspector's letter was wrong.
"It was a form letter that was sent to us, and it was factually incorrect," said Nicor spokesman Annette Martinez. "We fixed the situation but we knew we were never out of compliance. We took the proactive approach."
City representatives could not be reached for comment Friday.
The company also for the first time asserts that it had "check valves" on the boiler, which it claims would have protected employees. Check valves are simple, spring-loaded devices that can be used to make pipes flow one way.
Nicor points out — and permits verify — that after the letter from the city, the company did install reduced pressure zone "RPZ" valves, which use a double-check system and are usually installed near potentially hazardous chemicals.
However, Nicor says this installation was done as a show of good faith, rather than an admission of a problem.
"After confirming that no health hazard existed with the existing plumbing system, the company decided to take a voluntary, proactive approach to assess the plumbing system at the facility and to upgrade and enhance the plumbing system beyond the applicable code requirements," Jill Kelly, assistant general counsel to Nicor, wrote.
"You may be questioning why, given the fact that we were in compliance with code, that Nicor Gas went ahead and made the changes recommended. We did so because the City of Aurora is a valued community partner and we had no interest in engaging in a dispute with the City over this matter even though we were confident that we were within code requirements. So we made the changes.
"It would be misleading to your readers in the extreme to suggest any other motivation for our decision to install the particular equipment requested by the City."
Nicor also pointed out that the 408 S. River St. facility was built in the 1900s, renovated in the 1960s, and operated within the state plumbing codes of that time.
"The boiler and related plumbing system were inspected by State authorities on a regular basis and certificates were issued to permit their continuing operation," Kelly wrote.
When contacted Friday, Martinez again pointed out that OSHA retracted a fine the agency was prepared to issue and found no violation. She said the situation has been investigated multiple times without any wrongdoing found.
"Can all those agencies be wrong?" she said. "There's been no type of legal action that ended up anywhere on this."