Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Kaiser Cement Corporation (ALJ decision, January 27, 1986)

Secretary of Labor v. Kaiser Cement Corporation (FMSHRC WEST 84-71-M): $4,750 blasting settlement approved

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
WEST 84-71-M
Decided
January 27, 1986
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-20

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1986 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1986
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This settlement approval became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary sought $5,100 in penalties for four violations at Kaiser Cement Corporation's Cushenbury Cement Plant. The violations arose from improper blasting procedures that resulted in an injury, and the company promptly abated them. Judge Michael A. Lasher, Jr. approved a $4,750 settlement. Three penalties remained at their proposed amounts, while the penalty for one citation fell from $1,000 to $650 because it arose from the same incident as the other charges and presented a question of proof. The judge ordered the company to pay within 30 days if it had not already paid.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: Four safety standards listed in the decision's settlement table, concerning citations 2245606 through 2245609.
  • Outcome: Settlement approved for $4,750, reduced from the $5,100 proposed total.
  • Key point: The judge accepted a reduced penalty for one of four charges from the same blasting incident because that charge presented a proof question.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. KAISER CEMENT
DDATE:
19860127
TTEXT:
~180

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEST 84-71-M
PETITIONER
A.C. 04-00157-05507

v. Cushenbury Cement Plant

KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Lasher

Upon Petitioner's motion for approval of a proposed settlement, and the same appearing proper and in the full amount of the initial assessment as to 3 of the 4 violations involved, the settlement is approved.

The terms of the settlement are as follows:

Original
Health and Safety Proposed Settlement Citation Date Standard Violated Penalty Amount 2245606 11/17/83 56.6Ä113 $2,000 $2,000
2245607 11/17/83 56.6Ä117 2,000 2,000
2245608 11/17/83 56.6Ä161 1,000 650
2245609 11/17/83 56.5Ä112 100 100
Total $5,100 $4,750

In the premises, approval of the settlement is warranted.

The documentary record in this matter reflects that while the violations were promptly abated by Respondent, they resulted from a high degree of negligence and were of a high degree of gravity since an injury resulted from the improper blasting procedures practiced.

The reduction in the penalty originally proposed by the Secretary with respect to Citation No. 2245608 appears justified since it is but one of the four infractions charged arising from the same incident and since a question of proof exists as to such violation as charged.

In the 24 months preceding the violation, no alleged violations were assessed against the Respondent at the facility involved.
~181
The size of the Respondent, a large mine operator, ia approximately 2,025,808 man-hours per year. The size of the subject facility is approximately 550,000 man-hours per year.

The ability of the Respondent to continue in business will not be impaired by the payment of the settlement amounts specified.

In the premises, approval of the settlement is warranted.

Respondent, if it has not previously done so, is ordered to pay to the Secretary of Labor within 30 days from the date hereof the sum of $4,750.00.

Michael A. Lasher, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace