The Public Citizen Health Research Group brought the OSHA to court when the group argued that chromium regulations established by the OSHA were too hard for some companies to maintain. First, chromium...

The Public Citizen Health Research Group brought the OSHA to court when the group argued that chromium regulations established by the OSHA were too hard for some companies to maintain. First, chromium is a metal and can be most dangerous in its Cr(VI) form. In many types of work, there is exposure to this form of chromium as dust or fumes. Long term, the exposure can lead to lung cancer. Other problems related to exposure include asthma and nasal or skin irritation. Therefore, the OSHA determined that exposures to Cr(VI) must not surpass 5 μg/m3 permissible exposure limit (PEL). Subsequently, there was a proposal to reduce the PEL to 1 μg/m3. However, representatives from the affected industries argued that thislow level was not feasible for certain industries. Feasibility standards are set in a way so that an industry will not be harmed when trying to comply with the standards. The OSHA determined that costs to comply with the standards must be less than 1 percent of the company’s revenues and 10 percent of profits. Yet, in regard to the proposed PEL of 1 μg/m3, the OSHA could not determine that the standard was feasible for five industries: welding, aerospace painting, and pigment, catalyst, and dye production. Moreover, industry representatives disagreed with and criticized the studies that the OSHA used to determine relative exposure times and the resulting development of lung cancer. Therefore, the Public Citizen Health Research Group argued that the new PEL proposals by the OSHA should not be approved. How did the court decide in this case? Should the OSHA be forced to provide feasibility proof for the five industries listed above and more cancer studies? Public Citizen Health Research Group v. OSHA, No. 06-1818 (3d Cir. Feb. 23, 2009).