THE CASE OF AMERICAN SOCIETY OF

MECHANICAL ENGINEER (ASME)

VS HYDROLEVEL CORPORATIONS
SUBJECT: CLB 40002 ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIST
IN SOCIETY
INTRODUCTION
 1971
Mitchell of McDonnell and Miller
1975
becomes concerned about his
company's 9th
th June 1972 Hydrolevel files suit against the
ASME drafts a response to ASME,
position in the market due to the arrival
Hydrolevel McDonnell and Miller, and at the
of competing company Hydrolevel Hartford
Corporation

Mitchell approaches partner, John

James, 23rd
rd March 1972 Steam Boiler Inspection and
discussing his plan of trying to revise Insurance Co., charging them
Hydrolevel requests an ASME
the review and ruling with conspiracy to restrain trade
ASME code requiring cutoff valves to under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
correction
operate immediately.

1975
Early April 1971 Early 1972 The case was taken to the
James and Mitchell have dinner Hydrolevel learns of the ASME Supreme Court and
with T.R. Hardin, the chairman of the letter ASME was found guilty of
ASME heating boiler subcommittee and requested an official copy. antitrust violations

29th
th April 1971

Hoyt forwards letter to the

James Drafts a letter and sends it appropriate subcommittee chairman,
to Hoyt, secretary of the B-PV Hardin. Hardin responds without
Committee consulting the entire committee
stating that "a low-water cutoff valve
must operate immediately."
 •Definition
•Engineering disaster happens when engineers decided
CONSEQUENCES to use shortcuts in their design in order to meet the
demands of their customer. This will give consequences
OF ENGINEERING
towards the corporations, government and people.
DISASTER IN THE
ASME VS •Factors of engineering disasters
HYDROLEVEL • Failure due to miscommunication
CORPORATIONS • Unethical decisions made by T.R Hardin

•Consequences of engineering disaster

• ASME was sued by hydrolevel corporations.
ETHICAL ISSUE RAISE FROM THE INCIDENT

Conflict of interest: Hardin responded James and Hardin ASME

Eugene Mitchell and to James’ inquiry misused their subcommittee
John James had self- without consulting positions on the members that
interest for their own the whole subcommittee has acted in self-
company’s sake to subcommittee. led McDonnell and interest, they also
enter the market by
using unethical ways
Miller's chance to violated the
which was, they go against Sherman Anti-Trust
asked T.R Hardin in Hydrolevel Act
private and did not Corporation
go through a proper unfairly
channel.
 POSSIBLE ACTION TO PREVENT THE
INCIDENT FROM OCCUR

 The temporary chairman should have consulted with the

leadership.
 Advise McDonnell and Miller not to proceed with the
plans.
 Advise other employees in the committee.
 METHOD OF NEGATING SUCH INCIDENT TAKE PLACE IN FUTURE
AND ITS JUSTIFICATION FROM NSPE

METHOD JUSTIFICATION
• “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the
• Design and manufactured according to the public.”
specification outlined.
• “Engineers shall not disclose, without consent,
• Should not exposed all private and confidential information concerning the business
confidential information affairs or technical processes of any present or former
• Discussion between two parties must be client or employer, or public body on which they
serve.”
made.
• “Engineers shall act for each employer or client as
faithful agents or trustees which it also describes that
engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts
of interest that could influence or appear to influence
their judgment or the quality of their services.”
 THE RISK MEASURED BASED ON THE INFORMATION OF THE
ISSUES ON ENGINEERING TECH. IN TERM OF SAFETY AND RISK

 American Society of The risk based on the information of

Mechanical the issue
Engineering (ASME)
1. Hydrolevel’s time-delayed cut off
is the development
was dangerous
of voluntary safety 2. The heating boiler is do not have
codes and standard low water fuel to cut off to ensure
 ASME really taking that the boilers cannot be
care about the exploded.
safety code and the
standard.
IN THE TERMS OF SAFETY AND THE
RISK OF THIS ISSUES.
• Hydrolevel cooperation did not take care about
the guideline that given from (ASME)
• The deficient of water level it could be an
explosion.
• Hydrolevel’s time-delayed cut off was very
dangerous
• Hydrolevel cooperation won important approval
for use from the Brooklyn gas company, the one
of largest company installers heating boilers. It
make more dangerous the other customer
 SUMMARY

Low-water fuel cutoff is This matter was

Ethical issues
a must have in heating taken seriously by
which arose from
boilers to ensure that Eugene Mitchell
the case of ASME
the boilers cannot be who was the Vice
vs. Hydrolevel Corp
functioning without President for Sales
is a conflict of
sufficient water to Dept. at McDonnell
interest.
avoid explosion. and Miller, Inc.,
 CONCLUSION

However, to prevent such incidents

Hydrolevel discovered the Ethical issues which arose
from happening, they have
corruption involving the ASME and from the case of ASME vs.
outlined six fundamental canons
McDonnell and Miller committees. Hydrolevel Corp is a conflict of
for professional associates to
Hence, Hydrolevel filed a lawsuit interest.
follow based on NSPE.
THANK YOU!