DATE: May 6, 1992
CASE NO. 91-SDW-l



IN THE MATTER OF

JACK H. SCOTT,

          COMPLAINANT,

      V.                
                        
YEARGIN, INC., and
WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES,
          RESPONDENTS .

CASE NO. 91-SDW-2
JACK H. SCOTT,

          COMPLAINANT,

v.

WAYNE MAULDIN,
       AND
W . M . I ., INC . CRANE SERVICE ,
RESPONDENTS .


BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

                                                                  
              FINAL ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION AND DISMISSAL          
                                                                  
      Before me for review are the Recommended Orders of
Dismissal (R.D. and O.) of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in
these cases arising under the Safe Drinking Water Act, (SDW) 42
U.S.C.  300j-9(1) (1988).  The parties in the captioned cases 
[PAGE 2]
submitted before the ALJ in case No. 91-SDW-1, an Agreement
for Voluntary Dismissal and Release ~Agreement), signed and
dated March 9, 1992, with two signed Consent Orders of
Dismissal attached.  The Agreement on its face would settle
both cases, and upon review, the ALJ recommended
that both cases be dismissed with prejudice.1/
    For reasons of expedience and administrative
economy, the cases are hereby CONSOLIDATED for the
purpose of reviewing the dismissal pursuant to a common
settlement.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), as made
applicable by 29 C.F.R.  18.1(a) (1991).  The Agreement
states, inter alia, that, 1. "Each party takes nothing
by that party's action and each party shall pay their
own costs and attorneys' fees.  2.  The Compla1nant,
Jack H. Scott, agrees to dismiss these actions with
prejudice . . . . 3.  The Respondents. . .  agree not
to file any lawsuits against Complainant . . . ."  See
Attachment A to ALJ's R.D. and O. in 91-SDW-1 at 1. 
Each Consent Order of Dismissal provides that the
parties have agreed to settle this matter and that for
good and valuable considerationt Complainant agrees to
seek a voluntary dismissal of the action with
prejudice.  Complainant and each Respondents' counsel
signed the Agreement and counsel for Complainant and
the respective Respondents signed the consent orders.  Because
these requests for dismissal are based on a settlement
agreement entered into by the parties, I must review
the agreement to determine whether the terms are a fair, adequate
and reasonable settlement of these SDW complain~. 42 U.S.C.
5851(b)(2)tA): 29 C.F.R.  24.6(a) (1991).
    Review of the Agreement indicates that it may encompass
matters arising under various laws, only one of which is the SDW.
For the reasons set f orth in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co.,
Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-l, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, slip op.
at 2, I have limited my review to determining whether the
Agreement's terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated the SDW.
    Based on a review of the submissions before me in each case,
including the Agreement and Consent Orders, I conclude that the 
[PAGE 3]
terms of the Agreement are a fair, adequate and reasonable
settlement of Complainant's complaints under the SDW.
    Accordingly, I approve the settlement and dismiss the
complaints with prejudice.

    SO ORDERED.

                            LYNNE MARTIN
                            Secretary of Labor               

[ENDNOTES]

[1]   In so recommending, the ALJ expressly recognized that his
Recommended Order of Dismissal in Jack H. Scott v. Wayne Mauldin
and W.M.I. Inc. Crane Service, Case No. 91-SDW-2 was pending
review before me.  29 C.F.R. § 24.6                                                                    
        



Washington, D.C.