U.S. Department of Labor      Administrative Review Board
                              200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
                              Washington, D.C. 20210


In the Matter Of:

ANTHONY J. ROSS,                   ARB CASE NOS.  95-036; 95-161;
          COMPLAINANT,                            96-147

                                   ALJ CASE NOS.  94-ERA-39;
                                                  95-ERA-17;
                                                  96-ERA-1

                                   DATE:     JULY 8, 1996
     v.

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY
COMPANY,
          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD[1]

               FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                    AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT


     These cases arise 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 Settlement
Agreement and an Addendum General Release, seeking approval of the
settlement and dismissal of the complaints in all three cases.  The
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on June 18, 1996,
recommending that the settlement with regard to Case No. 96-ERA-1 be
approved.  The two other captioned cases were pending before the Board
prior to the issuance of the June 18, 1996 AU decision.

     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 complaints.
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.

[PAGE 2]

     The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, only one of which is the ERA . See
Settlement ¶¶ 1.1, 2.3 and Release ¶¶ 6, 7, 8
and 9. For the reasons set forth in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil
Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, 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 Respondent violated the ERA.

     Settlement sections III and V pertain to the confidentiality
provisions of the agreement, and do not prohibit Complainant from
reporting any suspected nuclear safety concern to the proper
governmental authority, from participating in any proceeding or
investigation pertaining thereto, or in restricting any disclosure by
him where required by law.  Each party is required to timely notify the
other in the event of receiving legal process or an order purporting to
require disclosure of the agreement.  We do not find this notification
requirement violative of public strict the parties from making such
disclosure after appropriate legal process. McGlynn v.
Pulsair, Inc., Case No. 93-CAA-2, Sec. Final Order Approving
Settlement, slip op. at 3.

     The parties' submissions including the agreement become part of
the record of the case and are subject to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988).  FOIA requires Federal agencies
to disclose requested records unless they are exempt from disclosure
under the Act.[2] See Debose v. Carolina Power & Light Co., Case
No. 92-ERA-14, Order Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb.
7, 1994, slip op. at 2-3 and cases there cited.

     Section IX provides that the agreement will be governed by the
laws of Connecticut except to the extent that Federal law is
preemptive.  We construe this to mean that the authority of the Board
and any Federal court, shall in all respects be governed by the laws
and regulations of the United States.  See Carter v. Electrical
Dist.  No. 2 of Pinal County, 92-TSC-11, ARB Order (May 30, 1996).

     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 ¶
1.2.

     SO ORDERED.


                                        DAVID A. O'BRIEN
                                        Chair

[PAGE 3]

                                        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 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.

[2]  Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(b), submitters may designate
specific information as confidential commercial information to be
handled as provided in the regulations.  When FOIA requests are
received for such information, the Department of Labor will notify the
submitter promptly, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(c); the submitter will be
given a reasonable amount of time to state its objections to
disclosure, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(e); and the submitter will be
notified if a decision is made to disclose the information, 29 C.F.R.
§ 70.26(f). If the information is withheld and a suit is filed by
the requester to compel disclosure, the submitter will be notified, 29
C.F.R. §70.26(h).