“McWane, Inc. and Company Executives Sentenced for Environmental Crimes”
Cast-iron pipe manufacturer McWane Inc. (McWane) and company executives James Delk, Michael Devine, and Charles “Barry” Robison were sentenced today in federal court for environmental crimes connected with the operation of McWane Cast Iron Pipe Company in Birmingham, Ala.
Judge Robert Propst sentenced McWane to pay a fine of $5 million and serve a period of probation for five years. McWane, Inc. is also ordered to perform a community service project valued at $2.7 million. Judge Propst ordered McWane executive James Delk to serve probation for three years, including six months of home detention and a fine of $90,000; Mike Devine received two years of probation, including three months of home detention and a fine of $35,000; and Charles Robinson received two years of probation and a fine of $2,500. Additionally, Robinson will serve 150 hours of community service work.
After a six week trial McWane; James Delk, a former Vice President and General Manager; and Mike Devine, a former plant manager at and current employee of McWane in New Jersey, were found guilty in June of this year of conspiracy to violate the Clean Water Act (CWA) by discharging industrial process wastewater into Avondale Creek in Birmingham through storm drains, in violation of their permit. McWane and Delk were also convicted of 18 counts of discharging pollutants-including hydraulic oil and sludge containing zinc and lead-into Avondale Creek and eventually Village Creek, which runs into Bayview Lake, between May 1999 and January 2001. Devine was additionally convicted of seven counts of discharging pollutants into Avondale Creek between May 1999 and January 2000. In a related count, McWane and Charles Robison-its Vice President for Environmental Affairs-were convicted of making a false statement to the EPA by misrepresenting that various locations relating to wastewater management were acceptable when this was not an accurate description of those locations. Further, many of the purported inspections had not been conducted.
>> Frontline/NY Times investigation into McWane’s legacy of death, dismemberment and pollution
>> McWane’s campaign contributions – Bush, Clinton, DNC, RNC…
As opposed to … communism?
No, dipstick. As opposed to “Capitalism Operating WIthin The Law.” You’re deliberately dense sometimes, aren’t you?
He’s not being deliberate. This is what happens in a pure Foxified environment. Should probably stick a warning label on him.
Judging from the majority of what I’ve seen of the kid’s posting, I don’t think he knows how to operate any other way. I prefer the term deliberately obtuse, though.
Has a nice ring to it.
I don’t think capitalism per se has much to do with it — I’m sure there are douchebags that will screw people over and pollute the environment under any political system.
Let’s see – capitalist violates environmental regulations — gets multimillion dollar fine and years of probation.
Environmentalists kill millions in Africa, their punishment — nada, zip, zilch
Your link is broken, Frank. Please fix, I can’t wait to see who you call “environmentalists.” I almost hope you pick Union Carbide, but I don’t think even you would have taste that bad.
Here’s the broken link:
http://www.fightingmalaria.org/
Why would I pick a corporation as an environmentalist, when I can choose the EPA?
There’s a hex on that link:
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp
http://info-pollution.com/moreddt.htm
ACSH is an industry front.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ACSH
Frank, would you care to quote a source which doesn’t take money from the people who sell DDT, such as Union Carbide?
OK, after doing a little research, I can see that DDT may be getting a worse rap than it deserves, but it still doesn’t relate to the subject at hand. The opposite of capitalism is not environmentalism.
The point is that most of what passes for environmentalism is actually Luddite anti – capitalism
The first source I cited is neither ACSH nor EPA:
http://www.fightingmalaria.org/
By the way, conservatives can be scientists, too. Perhaps the bias here is in SourceWatch.
“I do not see how capitalism is even relevant to this.”
Sure you do. Think about all of the things you’ve read on this site. People breaking the law within our Capitalist system=Evil Republicans. Stock traders and speculators bilking millions out of millions in a tech stock bubble=Clintonian(aka democratic) Prosperity. Its really all very simple.
I do not see how capitalism is even relevant to this. This was somebody that acted outside of the law, and was punished accordingly. This happens in every type of economic and political system.
Actually Fighting Malaria.org is also a front for RW groups like AEI, pushing DDT. Can you try a site that isn’t wingnutty please?
Their benefactors also include European Science and Environment Forum, which is a front group for tobacco companies such as Philip Morris.
Africa Fighting Malaria is also working to keep generic AIDS medications from AIDS patients in Africa.
Frank’s link, paragraph 3:
I smell the barnyard.
Tell it to Mr. Bush, Frank. He had this to say about persistent organic pollutants, a category that includes DDT:
The comment isn’t about DDT, and stop with the McCarthyesque “guilt by association”, factcheck.
Isn’t it amazing how quickly this turned into an attack on me. There are many more citations for the malaria deaths in Africa. The ideology is irrelevent. If I may paraphrase Rep. John “Sgt. Fury” Murtha: “Those mosquitos aren’t Democrat or Republican!”
As was pointed out above: [The company] acted outside of the law, and was punished accordingly
Move along, nothing to see here.
I was just pointing out that when the lumber industry suffers from protecting the spotted owl’s bungalows, nobody cares. When GE employees and stockolders suffer over PCB’s, not a peep. But catch a corporate guy using “plastic instead of paper”, and suddenly capitalism’s gone wild.
Bull.
The quote is about POPs–persistent organic pollutants. And DDT is one.
And quit you whining about “attacks” on you. You posted up some industry-funded propaganda. Even the Bush administration doesn’t buy it.
So it’s not true that DDT that kills the mosquitoes that cause malaria?
Is it true that the ecological imbalance caused by DDT is not nearly as catastrophic as the millions of deaths caused by malaria?
So, the deaths don’t matter — what’s important is whether the messenger wears oxfords or birkenstocks.
What misrepresentation, you ask?
For starters, the ACSH asks you to believe that African nations don’t have access to DDT because it’s no longer being made or sold by companies in the U.S.
Codswallop.
South Africa uses DDT widely to combat malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Neighboring Zimbabwe doesn’t. The difference in malaria rates is clear cut.
However, the ACSH is more interested in promoting the agenda of its funders than in telling the truth.
No, what matters is whether the messenger is delivering an honest assessment of the facts or is presenting a distorted, paid-for version that’s intended to misprepresent the facts.
The position of the ACSH is at odds with the position of the Bush administration on this. Not a lot of “Birkenstock wearers” in the Bush administration, are there?
Misrepresentations? What misrepresentations?
The ACSH article cites this quote:
Problem is, the quote is phony.
Hey, Jademold, my point was that the ban on DDT killed millions of people. Did it or did it not?
Doesn’t anybody get it? Jeebus, folks, there are dozens, if not hundreds of environmental regulations, that have put people out of business, caused unemployment, turned out to be totally unnecessary, and the like.
Stop being marionettes of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.
BTW, Jademold: Remember this:
Frankie is either the dumbest man alive or the most dishonest.
Perhaps, a combination of the two.
There is no ban in Africa on DDT.
Good work, Frank, you successfully derailed this thread. A winner is you!
It was never on track to begin with — it was strictly a “dog bites man” story.
Honest answer? I have no idea. And neither will you if you get all your information from outfits like the one you linked us to.
I have always been curious about the issue of sourcing. Each side routinely excoriates sites, organizations, etc … as being bought and paid for by the other side. When it comes to issues such as the environment, are there any sources that both sides agree on to be objective and neutral?
Environmentalism is the big baddie.
Reduce/reuse/recycle – look for alternatives to fossil fuels – conservationism – keep poison out of the air and water. Frank would have you believe that it is all about saving whales and hurting the economy for the sake of hurting it. (I still think the dude is paid to post wing nut stories here.)
Is there over regulations sure – but not as much as the paid lobyists for the pollluters would have you believe.
Ever wonder how those clusters of disease happen in certain area’s?
JD: I thought about that myself. How do corporations defend themselves from charges that they are damaging the environment, without hiring scientists?
So, then,must we assume that any environmentalist organization (GreenPeace, Sierra Club) that points to an environmental hazard caused or aggravated by a corporation is automatically right? Of course, then we assume the scientists in the employ of corporations are suspect, so they’re lying.
But don’t environmentalists have an agenda, even if it is only to survive as an organization and receive donations?
Would you believe that a very famous scientist questions global warming?
And he’s not beholden to big business?
And, zappa, I will tell you noothinbg about my income except that it come from the Federal Government.
Ever wonder how those clusters of disease happen in certain areas?
Yeah, it’s called Epidemiology.
When an article includes a lie in the very first sentence, that should tell you something.
The ASCH article begins:
But those radical environmentalists at the American Chemical Society disagree:
Go back and carefully read the stories you linked, Frank. See if you can find even one piece of evidence that the EPA ban on domestic production of DDT prevented any other nation from producing, acquiring, or applying it.
Here’s a paragraph written in 2002.
If I tell you where it came from, you’ll say it “doesn’t count”:
DDT use has virtually disappeared. Many countries blindly followed the U.S. ban or succumbed to activist pressure. Activists recently succeeded in pushing a virtual world-wide ban in the form of a United Nations treaty signed by the Bush administration, but not yet ratified by the Senate. The Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) treaty would permit DDT use only through expensive bureaucratic processes designed to dissuade rather than encourage use.
Now, produce for me one environmentalist that says that banning DDT in the US had no effect on the use of DDT in other countries, and / or a statement that DDT use has no direct correlation to reducing malaria.
I’m tired of running around documenting every sentence I write while you lefties couldn’t find a link to support your opinions if it was in your back pocket.
And now for something completely different: alar
Are you admitting to using a bogus source?
Pass. You brought it up. You support it.
Don’t pull stuff outta there, Frank. I gave you links here, here, and here, plus Bush’s remarks on POPs.
Have you been working out, Frank? You didn’t used to be able to carry the goal posts that far.
Oh, OK.
Here’s one.
Apropos of nothing, (nothing at all, I swear!) here’s some interesting information about Steven Milloy.