Before me for review is the Recommended Dismissal of
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert L. Cox issued on April 4,
1991, in the above-captioned case, which arises under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) (SDWA) (1988), the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988), and
the implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 24 (1190). The
ALJ reviewed the Release of All Claims submitted by the parties
and, finding that the agreement effectuated the policies and
purposes of the SDWA recommended that the complaint be dismissed
with prejudice.
Review of the agreement reveals that it appears to encompass
the settlement of matters under various laws, only one of which
is the ERA. See, e.g., Release of All Claims, First Paragraph.
As stated in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel oil Co., Inc., Case No.
86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, November 2, 1987, slip op. at 2:
[The Secretary's] authority over settlement agreements
is limited to such statutes as are within [the
Secretary's] jurisdiction and is defined by the
applicable statute. See Aurich v. Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc., Case No. [86-]CAA-2,
Secretary's Order Approving Settlement, issued July 29,
1987; Chase v. Buncombe County, N.C., Case No.
85-SWD-4, Secretary's Decision and Order on Remand,
issued November 3, 1986.
[Page 2]
I have, therefore, limited my review of the agreement to
determining whether the terms thereof are a fair, adequate and
reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegation that Respondent
violated the ERA.
Upon review of the terms of the Release of All Claims signed
by the Complainant, and based on the record of this case, I find
that the agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable and it is
hereby approved. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED.
