In the Matter of

DONALD C. SMITH,                                      CASE NOS.
94-ERA-43; 
                                                      94-ERA-44

          COMPLAINANT,                      DATE:  June 24, 1996


     v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD[1] 


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     This case arises under the employee protection provision of
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 
42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988 and Supp. IV 1992).  The parties
submitted a Joint Motion for Dismissal and a Settlement Agreement
seeking approval of the settlement and dismissal of the
complaint.  The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision
on May 22, 1996, recommending that the settlement be approved.  
     The request for approval is based on an agreement entered
into by the parties, therefore, we must review it to determine
whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of the complaint.  42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(A) (1988). 
Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th
Cir. 1991); Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 885 F.2d 551,
556 (9th Cir. 1989); Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power
Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-9, 89-ERA-10, Sec. Order, Mar. 23,
1989, slip op. at 1-2. 
     The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, only one of which is the ERA. 
See Paragraphs 1 and 7.  For the reasons set forth in
Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-
1, Sec. Order, 
[PAGE 2]
Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2, we have limited our review of the
agreement to determining whether its terms are a fair, adequate
and reasonable settlement of the Complainant's allegations that
Respondents violated the ERA.
     Paragraph 4 provides that "TVA will take all reasonable
steps to ensure that no reprisal will be taken against Mr.
Smith as a result of this settlement or as a result of his
participation in the appeal process". (Emphasis supplied).  We
construe this to mean that Respondent's managers, administrators
and employees will be made aware that any such reprisal is
contrary to law and the occurrence of such would be the basis for
a separate environmental whistleblower claim by Complainant.
     Paragraph 5 provides that the Complainant agrees not to
disclose the terms of the agreement except as is necessary to
implement or enforce the agreement or as required by law. 
Paragraph 8 provides that the Complainant is not prohibited from
reporting any suspected nuclear safety concern to the proper
governmental authority.  
     We find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. 
Accordingly, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE. See ¶ 10. 
     SO ORDERED.

                              __________________________
                              DAVID A. O'BRIEN
                              Chair


                              ___________________________
                              KARL J. SANDSTROM
                              Member


                              ___________________________
                              JOYCE D. MILLER
                              Alternate Member





[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] 
   On April 17, 1996, a Secretary's Order was signed delegating
jurisdiction to issue final agency decisions under this statute
and these regulations to the newly created Administrative Review
Board.  61 Fed. Reg. 19978 (May 3, 1996)(copy attached).  

  Secretary's Order 2-96 contains a comprehensive list of the
statutes, executive order and regulations under which the Board
now issues final agency decisions.  A copy of the final
procedural revisions to the regulations (61 Fed. Reg. 19982),
implementing this reorganization is also attached.