The article is painting a pretty misleading characterization of the wetlands issue. Foxconn isn't being permitted to "discharge" heavy metals into wetlands. Foxconn is being permitted to fill certain isolated wetlands (i.e. wetlands that are not connected to rivers or lakes that would put them under federal jurisdiction) with the requirement that they create 2 acres of additional wetlands elsewhere for every acre they fill in: https://journaltimes.com/business/local/dnr-foxconn-to-creat.... That's more than the usual state law requirement of 1.2 acres created per acre of wetland filled in.
There's no indication, moreover, that Foxconn has received waivers from ordinary state and federal rules that regulate dumping heavy metals into the soil. The article misleadingly tries to suggest that by juxtaposing the fact that the LCD panels "require benzene, chromium, etc." with the fact that Foxconn has been authorized to fill in certain wetlands.
There's no indication, moreover, that Foxconn has received waivers from ordinary state and federal rules that regulate dumping heavy metals into the soil. The article misleadingly tries to suggest that by juxtaposing the fact that the LCD panels "require benzene, chromium, etc." with the fact that Foxconn has been authorized to fill in certain wetlands.