In the Matter of

CAROLYN D. EZELL,                       ARB CASE NO. 96-142

          COMPLAINANT,                  ALJ CASE NO. 95-ERA-39

     v.                                 DATE:  June 26, 1996

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD[1] 


                                   ORDER

     This case arises under the employee protection provision of
the Energy Reorganization Act(ERA), 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988).
The parties have requested dismissal of the complaint with
prejudice and submitted a Memorandum of Understanding and
Agreement in support of such request.
     Since the request for approval of the settlement is based 
on an agreement entered into by the parties, the Board 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 1 of the Agreement indicates that Respondent will
pay a specified amount to Complainant and her attorney,
characterizing the sum as payment for compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.  There is no indication
as to the actual amount of money to be paid to the Complainant
pursuant to the proposed settlement.  The Board has
established policy that it must know the amount Complainant will
receive in order to determine if the settlement agreement is
fair, adequate and reasonable.  See Robert O. Klock v. TVA
and United Energy Services Corp., Sec. Order, Apr. 30, 1996. 

     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 
[PAGE 2]
v. Aleyeska Pipeline Service Co., 92-TSC-7, Sec. Dec. and
Order, Aug. 6, 1993, slip op. at 5.
     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 then submit a response within fifteen (15) days of
the issuance of this Order.
     SO ORDERED.

                         For the Administrative Review Board



                         
                         GERALD F. KRIZAN, Esq.   
                         Executive Director







[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.  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.