DATE:  September 18, 1995
CASE NO. 94-CAA-9


IN THE MATTER OF

DR. MARGARET DOUGLAS

          COMPLAINANT, 

     v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

          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, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) (1988), the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971, the Water Pollution Control
Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988),  the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9610,
the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622, and the
regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 24 (1993).  The Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) issued a Recommended Decision and Order on June 30,
1995.
     The parties subsequently agreed to settlement terms and have
submitted a Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement (Settlement
Agreement).  The parties now seek approval of the Settlement
Agreement and dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.  Because
the request for approval is based on an agreement entered into by
the parties, I must review it to determine whether the terms are
a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint.  
29 C.F.R. § 24.6(b); Macktal v. Secretary of Labor,
923 F.2d 
[PAGE 2]
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. Ord., Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at 2. 
     The Settlement Agreement appears to encompass the settlement
of matters arising under various laws, beyond those encompassed
by the above referenced statutes.  See Settlement
Agreement at ¶ 4.  For the reasons set forth in Poulos v. Ambassador
Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1,  Sec. Ord., Nov. 2,
1987, slip op. at 2, I have limited my review of the Settlement
Agreement to determining whether its terms are a fair, adequate
and reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegations that
Respondent violated the referenced statutes.
     I note that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement at ¶
8, the Complainant agrees to keep the terms of the Settlement
Agreement confidential.  I have held in a number of cases with
respect to confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements
that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) "requires agencies to
disclose requested documents unless they are exempt from
disclosure . . . ."  Plumlee v. Alyeska Pipeline Service
Co., Case Nos. 92-TSC-7, 10; 92-WPC-6, 7, 8, 10, Sec. Final
Ord. Approving Settlements and Dismissing Cases with Prejudice, 
Aug. 6, 1993, slip op. at 6.  See also Davis v. Valley View
Ferry Authority, Case No. 93-WPC-1, Sec. Final Ord. Approving
Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, Jun. 28, 1993, slip op. at 2
n.1 (parties' submissions become part of record and are subject
to FOIA); Ratliff v. Airco Gases, Case No. 93-STA-5, Sec.
Final Ord. Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint with
Prejudice, Jun. 25, 1993, slip op. at 2 (same); Reid v.
Tennessee Valley Auth., Case No. 91-ERA-17, Sec. Ord.
Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice,
Aug. 31, 1992, slip op. at 3 n.1 (same); Daily v. Portland
Gen'l Elec. Co., Case No. 88-ERA-40, Sec. Ord. Approving
Settlement and Dismissing Case, Mar. 1, 1990, slip op. at 1 n.1 (same).
     The records in this case are agency records which must be
made available for public inspection and copying under the FOIA. 
In the event a request for inspection or copying of the record of
this case is made by a member of the public, that request must be
responded to as provided in the FOIA.  If an exemption is
applicable to the record in this case or any specific document in
it, the Department of Labor would determine at the time a request
is made whether to exercise its discretion to claim the exemption
and withhold the document.  If no exemption were applicable, the
document would have to be disclosed.    
     Department of Labor regulations provide specific procedures
for responding to FOIA requests, for appeals by requesters from
denials of such requests, and for protecting the interests of 
[PAGE 3]
submitters of confidential commercial information.  See 29
C.F.R. Part 70 (1994). [1]    
     I find that the Settlement Agreement, as here construed, is
a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. 
Accordingly, I APPROVE the settlement and DISMISS the complaint
with prejudice. Settlement Agreement at ¶¶ 1, 6.
     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).