DATE:  September 14, 1995


CASE NO.:  95-WPC-5


In the Matter of:

JOHN STERLING SCOTT, SR.,  
          Complainant,

  v.

BOILER CLEANING & SPECIALITY CORPORATION,
d/b/a/BOILER CLEANING & SPECIALTY CORP.,
          Respondent.


               RECOMMENDED  ORDER  APPROVING  SETTLEMENT
                      AND  DISMISSING  COMPLAINT


     This proceeding involves the employee protection provisions
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq  (1972), and implementing regulations at 29
C.F.R. Part 24.  By letter dated August 22, 1995, Counsel for
both parties represented that the case had been settled and moved
that the matter be dismissed


     My review of the settlement agreement is limited to a
determination of whether its terms are fair, adequate and
reasonable.  Fuchkco and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., 89-
ERA-9 and 10 (Sec'y, March 23, 1984).  The settlement must
adequately protect the whistleblower.  Virginia Electric Power
and Power Co., 19 FERCS 61, 333 (Federal/Energy/Regulatory
Commission, 1982).  Furthermore, the settlement must not be
contrary to public interest.  Heffley v. NCK Metals Corp.,
89 SDW 2 (Sec'y, March 6, 1990).



     First, I note that the parties are represented by counsel. 
In reaching an agreement, Respondent does not admit that it has
broken any law or regulation.  Nor is the agreement to be
construed as an admission of liability or wrong doing by
Respondent.  Moreover, Complainant waives his right to sue in the
future on claims or 
causes of action arising out of facts occurring prior to the date
of the execution of the agreement.  Furthermore, Respondent
agrees to pay Complainant the sum of $3,500.00 on or before
OCTOBER 3, 1995 or upon approval of the settlement.


     After consideration of the settlement agreement, I find that
none of the terms or conditions are unacceptable.  Moreover, I
find the agreement to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and I
believe it is in the public interest to adopt the agreement as a
basis for the administrative disposition of this case. 
Therefore, I recommend dismissal of this proceeding with
prejudice based upon authority conferred by 29 C.F.R. Section
10.39(b).



                                   DANIEL A. SARNO, JR. 
                                   Administrative Law Judge

DAS/ccb
Newport News, Virginia








NOTICE:  This Recommended Order and the administrative
file in this matter will be forwarded for review by the Secretary
of Labor to the Office of Administrative Appeals,  U. S.
Department of Labor, Room S-4309, Frances Perkins Building, 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,  DC  20210.  The Office of
Administrative Appeals has the responsibility to advise and
assist the Secretary in the preparation and issuance of final
decisions in employee protection cases and adjudicated under the
regulations at 29 C.F.R. Parts 24 and 1978.  See 55 Fed.
Reg. 13250 (1990).