Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Notices 67895

charge) payable to ‘‘Consent Decree

Library.’’

Bruce S. Gelber,

Deputy Chief Environmental Enforcement

Section Environment & Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 97–33822 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response

Compensation and Liability Act

(‘‘CERCLA’’)

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, and

42 U.S.C. 9622(d), notice is hereby given

that a proposed consent decree in

United States v. Jane Doe, as Executrix

of the Estate of Edmund Barbera, et al.,

96 Civ. 8563 (BSJ), was lodged on

November 16, 1997, with the United

States District Court for the Southern

District of New York. The Consent

Decree addresses the hazardous waste

contamination at the Port Refinery

Superfund Site (the ‘‘Site’’), located in

the Village of Rye Brook, Westchester

County, New York. The Consent Decree

requires two de minimis generators of

hazardous substances transported to the

Site to pay to the United States a total

of $42,448.00.

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments relating to the proposed

consent decree. Comments should be

addressed to the Assistant Attorney

General for the Environment and

Natural Resources Division, Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and

should refer to United States v. Jane

Doe, as Executrix of the Estate of

Edmund Barbera, et al., DOJ Ref. #90–

11–3–1142A.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the office of the United

States Attorney for the Southern District

of New York, 100 Church Street, New

York, New York, 10007 (contact

Assistant United States Attorney Kathy

S. Marks); the Region II Office of the

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, New York, New York,

10007–1866 (contact Assistant Regional

Counsel Michael Mintzer); and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005, (202) 624–0892. A copy of the

proposed consent decree may obtained

in person or by mail from the Consent

Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th

Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. In

requesting a copy please refer to the

referenced case and enclose a check in

the amount of $5.50 (25 cents per page

reproduction costs) for the Consent

Decree, payable to the Consent Decree

Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 97–33824 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Settlement

Pursuant To The Safe Drinking Water

Act

In accordance with Department

policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby

given that on December 4, 1997, a

proposed Consent Decree in United

States v. Gas Transportation

Corporation, (N.D.FLA.) (Civil No.

3:97CV519/LAC), was lodged with the

U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Florida. The United States

filed its complaint in this action

simultaneously with the consent decree,

on behalf of the Environmental

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) pursuant to

provisions of the Safe Drinking Act

(‘‘SDWA’’), 42 U.S.C. 300h–2(b), and its

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part

144. The complaint seeks injunctive

relief and civil penalties for violations

of the SDWA. Gas Transportation

Corporation (‘‘GTC’’) owned and

operated the ‘‘Finley Heirs’’ well, a

Type II injection well located in Santa

Rosa County, Florida, for the disposal of

saltwater brine generated as an incident

of its oil production. The United States

has alleged that GTC’s improper

operation of the injection well allowed

for the movement of contaminants into

an underground source of drinking

water in violation of the Underground

Injection Control (‘‘UIC’’) regulations, its

UIC permit and a previously issued

Administration Order on Consent

(‘‘AOC’’). Under the proposed

settlement, GTC will pay $113,700 in

civil penalties based on its limited

financial ability, in resolution of the

United States’ claims as set forth in the

complaint.

The Department of Justice will receive

for a period of thirty (30) days from the

date of this publication comments

concerning the proposed consent

decree. Comments should be addressed

to the Assistant Attorney General of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C. 20530, and should

refer to United States v. Gas

Transportation Corporation, D.J. ref. 90–

5–1–1–4388.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney for the Northern District

of Florida, 114 East Gregory Street,

Pensacola, Florida 32501 and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G. Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005. A copy of the proposed decree

may be obtained in person or by mail

from the Consent Decree Library, 1120

G. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20005. In requesting a copy, please

enclose a check in the amount of $3.25

($.025 per page for reproduction costs)

payable to: Consent Decree Library.

Joel Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section

Environment & Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 97–33823 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decrees

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

In accordance with Section 122(d) of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and

the policy of the United States

Department of Justice, as provided in 28

CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on

December 9, 1997, three proposed

Consent Decrees in United States v.

Estate of J.M. Taylor, et al., Civ. No. C–

89–231–R, were lodged with the United

States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina. These

Consent Decrees concern the Aberdeen

Pesticides Dumps Superfund Site in

Aberdeen, North Carolina. The Site is

comprised of five non-contiguous Areas:

the Farm Chemicals, Twin Sites,

Fairway Six, Route 211 and McIver

Dump Areas. Pesticides were

formulated at the Farm Chemicals Area

from the late 1930’s until 1987. The

Twin Sties and Fairway Six Areas were

disposal locations for pesticide wastes

from the formulation plant on the Farm

Chemicals Area. Pesticide wastes from

another pesticide formulation plant in

Aberdeen were disposed of at the Twin

Sites, Fairway Six, Route 211 and

McIver Dump Areas.

Under the first of the three Consent

Decrees, nine corporate defendants

(Bayer Corp.; Dupont; Grower Service

Corp.; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical

Corp.; Mobil Oil Corp.; Novartis Crop

Protection (formerly Ciba-Geigy); Olin

Corp. Shell Oil Co.; and in Aberdeen

were disposed of at the Twin Sites,

Fairway Six, Route 211 and McIver

Dump Areas.
67896 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Notices

Under the first of the three Consent

Decrees, nine corporate defendants

(Bayer Corp.; Dupont; Grower Service

Corp.; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical

Corp.; Mobil Oil Corp.; Novartis Crop

Protection (formerly Ciba-Geigy); Olin

Corp. Shell Oil Co.; and Union Carbide

Corp.) agree to implement the remedial

design and remedial action for EPA’s

selected remedies for contaminated soil

and groundwater at all five Areas

comprising the Site and to pay

$8,568,686.01 of the United States’ past

response costs, plus future oversight

costs. This decree is referred to as the

‘‘RD/RA Decree.’’

Under the second Consent Decree,

Yadco of Pinehurst will pay $125,000 in

partial reimbursement of the United

States’ response costs. This second

Decree is referred to as the ‘‘Yadco

Decree.’’

Under the third Consent Decree, Dan

Maples, Partners in the Pits; Pits

Management Corp. and Maples Golf

Construction will collectively pay

$600,000 in partial reimbursement of

the United States’ response costs. This

third Decree is referred to as the

‘‘Maples Decree.’’

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments concerning the proposed

Consent Decrees. Comments should be

addressed to the Assistant Attorney

General, Environment and Natural

Resources Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington,

D.C., 20044, and should refer to United

States v. Estate of J.M. Taylor, et al., D.J.

Ref. 90–11–3–323.

The proposed Consent Decrees may

be examined at any of the following

offices: (1) The Office of the United

States Attorney for the Middle District

of North Carolina, 101 South

Edgeworth, Greensboro, North Carolina;

(2) the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, 100 Alabama Street,

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia; and (3) the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005 (telephone (202) 624–0892).

A copy of the proposed Consent

Decrees may be obtained in person or by

mail from the Consent Decree Library,

1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor,

Washington, D.C. 20005. Please refer to

the reference case and identify the

particular decrees desired. There is a

photocopying charge of $0.25 per page.

All checks should be made payable to

‘‘Consent Decree Library.’’

For a copy of the RD/RA Consent

Decree with all attachments, please

enclose a check for $136.00. For a copy

of the RD/RA Decree without the

attachments, enclose a check for $43.25.

For a copy of the Yadco Consent

Decree, please enclose a check for $6.75.

For a copy of the Maples Consent

Decree enclose a check for $8.75. There

are no attachments to the Yadco or

Maples Consent Decrees.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment & Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 97–33821 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

[Civil Action No. 497–CF 564 E]

Public Comment and Response on

Proposed Final Judgment; United

States and State of Texas v. Allied

Waste Industries, Inc.

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16 (b)–(h),

the United States of America hereby

publishes below the comment received

on the proposed Final Judgment in

United States and State of Texas v.

Allied Waste Industries, Inc., Civil

Action No. 497–CV 564 E, filed in the

United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, together with

the United States’ response to the

comment.

Copies of the comment and response

are available for inspection in Room 215

of the U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 325 7th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20530, telephone: (202)

514–2481, and at the office of the Clerk

of the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Texas, Room

310, 501 W. 10th Street, Fort Worth, TX

76102. Copies of any of these materials

may be obtained upon request and

payment of a copying fee.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

Independent Environmental Services, Inc.,

October 10, 1997.

J. Robert Kramer II

Chief, Litigation II Section

Antitrust Division

United States Department of Justice

1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 3000

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Kramer: This letter addresses our

company’s concerns regarding the merger or

takeover of USA Waste Services, Inc., Fort

Worth by Allied Waste Industries, Inc., Fort

Worth. Our company, Independent

Environmental Services, Inc. (IESI), is an

independent hauler located and doing

business in Tarrant County. To my

knowledge, we are the only independent

hauler in the municipal residential business

in Tarrant County and one of a very few

competing in the commercial and industrial

business in Tarrant County. As I am sure you

are aware, Allied Waste Industries controls

all of the assets that were owned by USA

Waste Services, Triple A Waste Services,

Consolidated Waste Services, Laidlaw Waste

Industries, Sanifill, and Tarrant County

Waste. This combination has reduced

competition in our market and has resulted

in higher landfill disposal fees to

independent competitors like IESI. As you

are no doubt aware, the large public solid

waste companies often seek to control their

markets and eliminate competition by

charging excessive disposal rates to

independent operators like IESI.

IESI received a letter from Laidlaw

advising us of the opportunity to purchase air

space at their newly acquired Crow Landfill

as well as additional space at their existing

Turkey Creek Landfill. We submitted a

proposal to buy air space at the Crow

Landfill. My concern is that I also received

a letter and phone call from Allied/Laidlaw,

which raises our cost of disposal 23% for

residential and compacted industrial waste. I

have also been advised that my front load

commercial disposal rates have been

increased 63.4%.

When David Bickel from the US Justice

Department interviewed me, I expressed a

concern that only Waste Management and

Sanifill/USA Waste owned landfills that

were strategically and economically located

for disposal in Tarrant County. It is also

interesting to point out that, prior to the

Allied acquisition, Sanifill was not a

competitor in the hauling business and was

very competitive and accommodating and

desirous of our disposal business. These

recent price increases by Allied/Laidlaw

represent a strategic plan to leverage this

capacity and utilize it against us,

particularly, since our disposal alternatives

are extremely limited.

Allied/Laidlaw has seen fit to measure our

front loader trucks differently than the truck

manufacturer and the 2 previous landfill

owners. I cannot help but think the term

‘‘anti-competitive, monopolistic, unfair

practices, price gouging, and driving the little

guy out of business’’ all aptly describe the

action taken by Allied/Laidlaw. It is also

rumored that BFI would be purchasing the

air space at Crow. The rumor is supported by

the fact that Allied/Laidlaw needs disposal

capacity in another market where BFI can

accommodate their needs. From an

accounting perspective, you can imagine the

‘‘pencil whipping’’ that can take place in that

type of an arrangement. A deal could easily

be structured or better yet, two deals easily

structured in which anyone reviewing the

merits would have no idea of the actual

accommodations that have taken place. It

also further enhances my belief of the desire

by the Laidlaw management to drive us out

of business.

I’m sure that your decision to approve

(subject to conditions) the Allied acquisition

did not contemplate the current activities

demonstrated by Allied/Laidlaw. If your final

judgment is not yet final, we would like to

discuss our concerns so that our company

may continue to survive.

Your immediate concern to this problem is

appreciated.