DATE:  August 6, 1993
CASE NO. 92-TSC-7


IN THE MATTER OF

R. GLEN PLUMLEE,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE 
COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.


CASE NO. 92-TSC-10


IN THE MATTER OF

ROBERT L. PLUMLEE,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE 
COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.
CASE NO. 92-WPC-6

[PAGE 2]


IN THE MATTER OF

JOE TRACANNA,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE 
COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.


CASE NO. 92-WPC-7


IN THE MATTER OF

KENNETH HAYSON,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE 
COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.


CASE NO. 92-WPC-8


IN THE MATTER OF

JAMES A. SCHOOLEY,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE 
COMPANY,


[PAGE 3]
          RESPONDENT.




CASE NO. 93-WPC-10


IN THE MATTER OF

RICHARD GREEN,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE 
COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENTS
                   AND DISMISSING CASES WITH PREJUDICE 

     Before me for review is the Recommended Decision and Order
Approving Settlement Agreements and Dismissals with Prejudice
(R.D. and O.) of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the above-
captioned cases arising under the employee protection provisions
of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622
(1988); the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367
(1988); the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988); and the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1988)
(hereinafter, the Acts).
     Before the ALJ, the parties submitted a "Joint Motion to
Approve Settlement Agreements and for Order Dismissing
Complaints," with six fully executed documents attached and
entitled "Settlement Agreement, Release and Covenant Not to Sue."
Finding the terms of the settlements to be fair, adequate and
reasonable, the ALJ recommended approval of the settlement
agreements and dismissal of the complaints with prejudice.
     In the Joint Motion for Dismissal, counsel for all parties
requested that the complete settlement agreements containing the
amounts of the monetary payments to Complainants and their
counsel should not be placed on the public record in order to
maximize confidentiality.  Copies of the Settlement Agreements 
[PAGE 4]
containing all terms were submitted under seal to be reviewed
in camera by the ALJ and the Secretary.  Counsel 
additionally submitted redacted copies of each settlement
agreement for the public record, wherein the monetary sums are
not revealed.    
     Subsequently, before me, the parties filed a substitute
Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreements, stating that the
parties have no objection to unsealing the unredacted versions of
the settlement agreements and placing them in the public record,
if deemed necessary by the Secretary.
     The Secretary has the authority and responsibility to review
the terms of these settlement agreements and determine whether
they are fair, adequate and reasonable to settle Complainants'
allegations that Respondent violated the Acts. [1]   See
generally Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d
1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v. U.S. Department of
Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 556 (9th Cir. 1989); Iverson v. Town
of Keystone South Dakota, Case No. 93-WPC-0003, Sec. Final
Ord., June 28, 1993; Anderson v. Waste Management of New
Mexico, Case No. 88-TSC-2, Sec. Ord. Approving Settlement,
Dec. 18, 1990; Aurich v. Consolidated Edison Company, Case
No. 86-CAA-2, Sec. Ord., July 29, 1987; Chase v. Buncombe
County, N.C., Case No. 85-SWD-4, Sec. Dec. and Ord. on
Remand, Nov. 3, 1986.  The particular terms of the agreements,
such as the amount of money to be received by the Complainant,
affect not only the individual whistleblower but impact the
public interest as well.  Where such terms are not fair, adequate
and reasonable, other employees may be discouraged from reporting
safety violations.  See Bittner v. Fuel Economy
Contracting Company, Case No. 88-ERA-22, Sec. Ord. Denying
Request for Reconsideration and Dismissal, Dec. 13, 1989, slip
op. at 3.   
     Accordingly, I must review the unredacted copies of the
settlement agreements submitted by the parties as the basis for
dismissing these cases against Respondent.  Contrary to the
request of the parties in their original joint motion for
dismissal, the complete unredacted settlement agreements
submitted for my review become a part of the public record in
these cases.  See 5 U.S.C. § 556(e) (1988);
see McTiernan v. Public Service Co., Case No. 91-
ERA-37, Sec. Ord. Approving Settlement, Feb. 21, 1993, slip op.
at 1-2; Thompson v. The Detroit Edison Co., Case No. 87-
ERA-2, Sec. Ord. to Show Cause, April 26, 1990, slip op. at 5,
n.3; see also Vogel v. Florida Power Corp. and
Fluor Constructors, Inc., Case No. 90-ERA-49, Sec. Final Ord.
Approving Settlement, March 12, 1991, slip op. at 2-3.  With
respect to the provisions in the settlement agreements dealing
with confidentiality, I further note that the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, requires federal agencies
to disclose requested records unless they are exempt from
disclosure 
[PAGE 5]
under the Act.  See McTiernan v. Public Service
Co., Case No. 91-ERA-37, Sec. Ord. Approving Settlement, Feb. 21,
1992, slip op. at 1-2; Hamka v. The Detroit Edison Co., Case No.
88-ERA-26, Sec. Ord. to Submit Attachments, Dec. 9, 1991, slip op.
at 2, n. 1; Daily v. Portland General Electric Co., Case
No. 88-ERA-40, Sec. Ord. Approving Settlement and Dismissing
Case, Mar. 1, 1990, slip op. at 1, n.1.
     In light of the substitute joint motion, I have reviewed the
terms of the unredacted settlement agreements, and find that the
terms of these settlements are fair, adequate and reasonable to
settle Complainants' allegations that Respondent violated the
Acts.
     Accordingly, the settlement agreements are approved and the
cases are dismissed with prejudice.
     SO ORDERED.

                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.



[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   The Department of Labor does not simply provide a forum 
for private parties to litigate their private employment
discrimination suits.  Protected whistleblowing under the
employee protection provisions of the enumerated statutes
involved in these cases may expose not just private harms, but
health and safety hazards to the public.  The Secretary
represents the public interest in keeping channels of information
open by assuring that settlements adequately protect
whistleblowers.  See McTiernan v. Public Service
Company of Colorado, Inc., Case No. 91-ERA-37, Sec. Ord.
Approving Settlement, Feb. 21, 1992, slip op. at 1-3;  Daily
v. Portland General Electric Co., Case No. 88-ERA-40, Sec.
Ord. to Submit Settlement, Nov. 6, 1989, slip op. at 3.