DATE: December 13, 1995
CASE NO. 94-CAA-7


IN THE MATTER OF 

LAWRENCE J. OPTHOF,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ASHLAND CHEMICAL COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     This case arises under the employee protection provisions of
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988); the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9610 (1988); the Water Pollution Control
Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988); the Safe Drinking Water Act,
42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) (1988); the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1988); and the Toxic Substances Control
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1988).  The parties submitted a
Settlement Agreement and General Release seeking approval of the
settlement and dismissal of the complaint.
     The request for approval is based on an agreement entered
into by the parties; therefore, I must review it to determine
whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of the complaint.  24 C.F.R. § 24.6.  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, beyond those enumerated above. 
See Paragraphs 3 and 4.  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, I have limited my review of the
agreement to determining whether its terms are a fair, adequate
and reasonable settlement of the Complainant's allegations the
Respondent violated the above enumerated Acts.
     Paragraph 9 contains language which provides that the 
Complainant shall keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement
confidential.  I interpret this language as not preventing
Complainant, either voluntarily or pursuant to an order or
subpoena, from communicating with, or providing information to,
State and Federal government agencies about suspected violations
of law involving the Respondent.  See Corder v. Bechtel Energy
Corp., Sec. Order, Feb. 9, 1994, slip op. at 6-8 (finding
void as contrary to public policy a settlement agreement
provision prohibiting the complainant from communicating with
federal or state agencies concerning possible violations of law). 
 
     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.[1]   See Debose
v. Carolina Power and Light Co., Case No. 92-ERA-14, Ord.
Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb. 7, 1994, slip
op. at 2-3 and cases there cited. 
     I find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaints. 
Accordingly, I APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE.  Paragraph 2.  
     SO ORDERED.


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.






[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] 
  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).