14 ms·

It’s not clear that they violated a building permit. It sounds like they had a building permit but the environmental permit for the tanks had not yet been appro

It’s not clear that they violated a building permit. It sounds like they had a building permit but the environmental permit for the tanks had not yet been approved.

gamblor956 5y ago
That's actually worse. An environmental permit violation can result in fines, an order to remove the offending structure, and restoration of the land to the same-or-better condition than it was before the violation. (In most places, a building permit represents the approval of construction plans and entitlements, but does not represent permission to build. An environmental permit grants permission to build and conduct activities on a given site. Anyone with any experience in construction would know that, so it sounds like whoever is in charge at Tesla Germany doesn't have experience in this area.)
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  In this case the environmental permit would be for the operational tanks not simply building some thing that looks like a tank but is never used. I keep pointing out that a chemical permit is not really violated if there aren’t any chemicals, but people in the comments here keep ignoring that point. It is not the building that would be against the permit but the chemicals. In this case the tanks were not used to store any chemicals so again they wouldn’t have been in Direct violation of a environmental use permit for chemicals. It’s always weird how people seem to assume that Tesla has a death wish when it comes to permits and such when back-and-forth between regulators and large companies doing large projects is pretty normal and not evidence of massive environmental destruction. In any large project you will have some level of miscommunication or simply inspector concerns. Simply building tanks that are not yet permitted to hold chemicals is noteworthy for inspectors but is not necessarily actual wrongdoing, especially if Tesla is in the process of trying to get them properly permitted for actual use.
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    Environmental permits apply both to the construction of a facility and to their use. So yes, it matters that Tesla went ahead and constructed some tanks without having the environmental permit first. It's irrelevant that they aren't going to actually use those tanks, as that's a separate provision of the environmental permit.

It’s not clear that they violated a building permit. It sounds like they had a building permit but the environmental permit for the tanks had not yet been approved.

gamblor956 5y ago

That's actually worse. An environmental permit violation can result in fines, an order to remove the offending structure, and restoration of the land to the same-or-better condition than it was before the violation. (In most places, a building permit represents the approval of construction plans and entitlements, but does not represent permission to build. An environmental permit grants permission to build and conduct activities on a given site. Anyone with any experience in construction would know that, so it sounds like whoever is in charge at Tesla Germany doesn't have experience in this area.)

Robotbeat 5y ago
In this case the environmental permit would be for the operational tanks not simply building some thing that looks like a tank but is never used. I keep pointing out that a chemical permit is not really violated if there aren’t any chemicals, but people in the comments here keep ignoring that point. It is not the building that would be against the permit but the chemicals. In this case the tanks were not used to store any chemicals so again they wouldn’t have been in Direct violation of a environmental use permit for chemicals. It’s always weird how people seem to assume that Tesla has a death wish when it comes to permits and such when back-and-forth between regulators and large companies doing large projects is pretty normal and not evidence of massive environmental destruction. In any large project you will have some level of miscommunication or simply inspector concerns. Simply building tanks that are not yet permitted to hold chemicals is noteworthy for inspectors but is not necessarily actual wrongdoing, especially if Tesla is in the process of trying to get them properly permitted for actual use.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  Environmental permits apply both to the construction of a facility and to their use. So yes, it matters that Tesla went ahead and constructed some tanks without having the environmental permit first. It's irrelevant that they aren't going to actually use those tanks, as that's a separate provision of the environmental permit.