In the past, there was a constant strain between industry and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Industry, with its relentless pursuit of profitability, would spare no expense—environment included—to achieve its objectives. EPA, on the other hand, often levied hefty fines on industry in order to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. In recent years, however, many companies have taken a more proactive approach toward environmental compliance. While some companies use an image of environmental responsibility only in their marketing campaigns, others have realized that it is cheaper to take preventive action than be forced to pay for remediation. The new paradigm of environmental law recognizes that industry makes a better partner than adversary. This Note discusses the attempts of Texas Instruments, Inc. to transfer ownership of a state-of-the-art waste water treatment plant to an industrial redevelopment company. The plan would create an industrial park, create hundreds of jobs, and allow small industrial companies to discharge their hazardous waste to an on-site facility at a greatly reduced cost. However, because of a narrow reading of the exceptions to the extensive permitting requirements of the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA), the plant is currently unable to treat hazardous waste. This Note examines several of the relevant RCRA exceptions and argues that it benefits all parties for this plant to operate at full capacity.
- Journal title
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review
- Date submitted
6 September 2022