Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawOccupational Safety and HealthOSHAbenzenesignificant riskSection 3(8)Section 6(b)(5)

Facts

OSHA regulated occupational exposure to benzene, a substance shown to cause cancer at high exposure levels, by reducing the permissible airborne exposure limit from 10 ppm to 1 ppm and by imposing monitoring, medical-testing, and dermal-contact restrictions. OSHA proceeded on a carcinogen policy that, absent definitive proof of a safe level, any exposure above zero should be treated as risky and regulated down to the lowest technologically and economically feasible level. The record strongly supported regulation of benzene generally and the prior 10 ppm standard, but evidence of adverse effects from exposure at or below 10 ppm was sketchy, and OSHA did not find that 10 ppm posed a significant workplace health risk. OSHA also made no finding under § 3(8) that the new standard was reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment.

Issue

Whether OSHA may promulgate a permanent toxic-substance standard reducing benzene exposure to the lowest feasible level solely because benzene is a carcinogen and no safe threshold has been proven, without first finding that exposure at the existing level poses a significant risk of material health impairment. Also, whether the dermal-contact ban could stand without such a threshold finding.

Rule

Before promulgating any permanent health or safety standard under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, including one under § 6(b)(5) for toxic materials, the Secretary must make a threshold finding that the workplace presents a significant risk of material health impairment and that the new standard is therefore reasonably necessary or appropriate under § 3(8). Section 6(b)(5) does not require elimination of all risks to the lowest feasible level absent that threshold finding, and OSHA bears the burden of showing on substantial evidence, using the best available evidence, that long-term exposure presents a significant risk.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Secretary of Labor issues a permanent workplace rule for a resin additive used in factories around Cleveland, Ohio. The agency relies on studies showing the additive causes liver tumors in mice at extremely high doses and sets the airborne limit at the lowest level industry can feasibly achieve, but it makes no finding that workers exposed at the current limit face a significant risk of material health impairment.

If manufacturers seek pre-enforcement review, which argument is strongest?

Explanation. The majority required a threshold finding for any permanent OSHA standard, including toxic-substance standards: the agency must find significant risk in the workplace and therefore that the new standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate under § 3(8). The agency cannot rely solely on a policy that any carcinogen exposure above zero must be reduced to the lowest feasible level, nor can it shift the burden to industry to prove safety.