Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge commission to halt Metawaste CUP, calling proposal a ‘refinery’ and landfill risk
Summary
Multiple residents told the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission they oppose a conditional use permit for Metawaste, saying the proposal functions as a fuel “refinery,” would send ash to local landfills and pose air‑quality and safety risks.
Several residents used the meeting’s public‑comment period to press the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission to reconsider a conditional use permit (CUP) for a company described in public filings as Metawaste.
"It is a refinery," said Karen Waldman, who asked that her comments be part of the public record and raised a string of technical and procedural concerns about the application. Waldman cited statements in prior minutes and presentations that she said were inconsistent and warned that byproducts from the process — which she said would be partly returned as renewable fuel and partly as residual ash — could be sent to the local landfill.
Other commenters amplified the risk and process concerns. Mary Anne Hollis told the commission the minutes show the system capacity as "1,400,000 pounds" and noted a staff member’s comment that the facility would limit on‑site DME storage to 10,000 pounds initially; Hollis said those numbers and the daily processing plan indicated the operation is more than a distribution site. John O’Brien said legal options are being pursued after an injunction attempt failed and described planned meetings with legislators and the governor.
Staff did not take action on issues raised during public comment; the chair reminded speakers that matters not on tonight’s agenda would be considered only if placed on a future agenda or appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. The commission received repeated requests from residents for clearer, step‑by‑step public information about where Metawaste stands in the permitting and review process.
The commission did not vote on the Metawaste CUP at this meeting. Several commissioners acknowledged the concerns and encouraged continued public engagement and coordination with staff and the Board of County Commissioners, which holds final authority on some solid‑waste questions.
What's next: Residents asked staff to publish clearer procedural steps and for the commission to place relevant items on future agendas; several speakers said they intend to pursue administrative and legislative avenues outside the RPC process.
