Nevada county to study offensive odor
by Associated Press
Aug 02, 2009 | 228 views | 0 0 comments | 1 1 recommendations | email to a friend | print
FALLON — Churchill County commissoners have approved funding for a study into the source of a nasty odor that has prompted citizen complaints near Fallon.

County Planning Director Eleanor Lockwood said the study follows complaints that Bango Oil is producing the odor at its oil refining plant about 60 miles east of Reno. The company has denied the allegation.

The three University of Nevada, Reno scientists who will conduct the study will gather meteorological data, including wind speeds and directions. Lockwood said the study will show how far compounds released from Bango Oil can travel, and whether the plant is the source of the problem.

County commissioners approved initial funding of $35,000 for the study that could cost up to double that amount. Bango Oil spokesman Tom Clark said the company will help fund it.

"This company firmly believes the odors are not coming from this facility, and anything we can do to help we will. It's the right thing to do," he told the Lahontan Valley News & Fallon Eagle Standard newspaper. "The allegations won't go away if we don't aid the county."

Clark added the company has removed a thermal oxidizer that some residents complained was the source of the offending odor.

In a related development last week, a three-member panel of the State Environmental Commission upheld the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection's decision in February to issue a revised air quality permit to Bango Oil.

While they decided the revised permit will comply with national ambient air quality standards, the three panel members agreed there's an odor problem in the area.

Two members, Alan Coyner and Jim Gans, went so far to say they believed the source of the odor was Bango Oil.

"The hearing was not about odors. It was irresponsible for them to say that," Clark said. "We invite those commissioners to come out to the facility to see for themselves."

The revised permit was necessary because the company wants to double its production capacity and add production equipment at its site.

NDEP's earlier decision was appealed by three residents.
comments (0)
no comments yet

report abuse...

We consider the comments section of www.dailysparkstribune.com to be a key part of a constructive community dialogue. Your comments will appear as you type them. The Daily Sparks Tribune does not prescreen contributions to the comments section. Individuals posting libelous statements may be held responsible.