IN THE MATTER OF 

ROBERT NIMETZ,                                        CASE NOS. 94-ERA-43; 
                                                      94-ERA-44
          COMPLAINANT,
                                            DATE:   May 30, 1996


     v.

CDI POWER SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.

     and

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENTS.


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 Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement seeking
approval of the settlement and dismissal of the captioned
complaints.  The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision
on November 29, 1995, 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 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. 
     The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, only one of which is the ERA. 
See ¶¶ 1 and 5.  For the reasons set forth in
Poulos v. Ambassador 
[PAGE 2]
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
Respondents violated the ERA.
     Paragraph 8 provides that the Complainant is not 
prohibited from reporting any suspected nuclear safety concern 
to the proper governmental authority, or from participating in
any proceeding or investigation pertaining thereto, or in
restricting any disclosure by him where required by law.    
     We find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaints. 8
Accordingly, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS
WITH PREJUDICE. See ¶ 5. 
     SO ORDERED.



                              

                              ___________________________
                              KARL J. SANDSTROM
                              Presiding 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
Administrative Review 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.