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 pointi

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.