AIChE advocates sound science before Supreme Court

Chemical Engineering Progress, Aug 1998

On May 26, AIChE filed a brief in the US Supreme Court urging the justices to review a case involving the application of chemical engineering principles to a regulation developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In late June, however, the Supreme Court announced that it had declined to take up the case.

AIChE was joined in the brief by the National Society of Professional Engineers the Society of Plastics Engineers, and nine other organizations. According to AIChE Executive Director Glenn Taylor, "AIChE submitted its views to the Supreme Court because we want to ensure that the nation's technical laws and regulations are based on sound scientific and engineering principles."

The case, Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. United States, involved the interpretation of an EPA regulation on fugitive emissions of benzene. The regulation in question exempts from its coverage facilities that "use" less than a certain amount of benzene. EPA, using a "multiple counting" approach, argued that the amount of benzene used is to be determined by repeatedly measuring and aggregating recirculating flows within a manufacturing process rather than determining net throughput or inventory of material. AIChE, in the brief, pointed out to the court that the process in question employs benzene as a reflux agent and the benzene is not consumed.

Noting that EPA's "multiple counting" approach distorts the meaning of "use" as understood by chemical engineers, the brief stated, "The scientific and engineering communities cannot do their jobs properly where they cannot rely on the plain meaning of regulatory terms." AIChE also informed the court that EPA's interpretation is unworkable because of the difficulty of using multiple counting in manufacturing processes. In light of the Supreme Court's decision not to take the case, EPA's interpretation stands.

Taylor stated: "Although the Supreme Court can only review a few cases each year, we are disappointed that it did not select this case. The promotion of good chemical engineering practices is in the public interest. We believe the principle involved here, irrespective of the chemical or the parties in this particular case, is of great importance to our profession and society as a whole."