IN THE MATTER OF 

WILLIAM C. BIDDY,                            CASE NO. 95-TSC-7

          COMPLAINANT,                       DATE: May 31, 1996


     v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD[1] 


                                   ORDER

     This case arises under the employee protection provisions of
the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1988),
the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988),
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988) and the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1988).  The parties
have requested  dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and
submitted a Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and For
Order of Dismissal and a Settlement Agreement, Release and
Covenant Not to Sue in support of such request.
     Since the request for approval of the settlement is based on
an agreement entered into by the parties, 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); 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.
     Paragraph 3 of the Agreement indicates that Respondent will
pay a specified amount to Complainant for all of his monetary
claims, including any claim for attorney's fees and costs.  There
is no indication as to the actual amount of money to be paid to
the Complainant pursuant to the proposed settlement.  The
Board must know the amount Complainant will receive in
order to 
[PAGE 2]
determine if the settlement agreement is fair, adequate and
reasonable.  This amount affects not only the Complainant's
individual interest, but impacts on the public interest as well,
because if the amount is not fair, adequate and reasonable, other
employees may be discouraged from reporting safety violations. 
See Plumlee v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 92-TSC-7,
Sec. Dec. and Order, Aug. 6, 1993, slip op. at 5.
     Likewise, the Agreement does not specify the amount of
attorney's fees to be paid.  As long as the parties are in
agreement as to the amount of the attorney's fees to be paid, it
is not necessary for the Board to review the amount with the
specificity usually required by the lodestar method.  Hensley
v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).  If a dispute arises
between the parties with regard to the appropriateness of the
amount of attorney's fees, a subsequent order requiring an
itemization of such fees may be necessary.  
     The parties are required to file a joint response to this
Order within ten (10) days.  If the parties cannot agree upon a
joint response, Complainant's counsel is to submit the required
information within ten (10) days from the issuance of this Order. 
Respondent may submit a response within fifteen (15) days of the
issuance of this Order.
     SO ORDERED.                                                 
                         




                              ________________________
                              KARL J. SANDSTROM
                              Presiding Member




                              ________________________
                              JOYCE D. MILLER
                              Alternate Member




[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   On April 17, 1996, Secretary's Order 2-96 was signed
delegating jurisdiction to issue final agency decisions under the
environmental whistleblower statutes and the regulations at 29
C.F.R. Part 24, to the newly created Administrative Review Board
(ARB).  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 ARB 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.