Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2000

Home Browse Search

Louisville, Colorado August 25, 2000 Page 2 To give you a little background on our quest for approval in Colorado,we applied for approval by Section 301.2 of the UPC The Plumbing Board denied our request on the basis that AAVs were not equivalent to the traditional method of venting with regard to "quality, strength, effectiveness, durability and safety" Studor had been aware for some time that this concern had existed in the plumbing industry As a result, several years ago we agreed to participate in an extensive independent engineering review process and to submit the issue to an independent Special Master in the State of Colorado,which adopts the 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code. Our goal was to obtain a final decision on the technical issues related to the"equivalency" question. The Colorado independent engineering review process concluded that Studor's valve did meet the equivalency test and should be approved. The issue was submitted to the Special Master,who also ruled conclusively in favor of Studor In spite of these decisions,the Colorado Examining Board of Plumbers denied Studor's request for approval. The matter has now proceeded through the Colorado court system, resulting m a final decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals that found the evidence supporting the approval of Studor's valves"overwhelming" and ordering the Board to approve the valves under Section 301.2 I have enclosed a copy of the Court's decision for your review I realize that our case is a little different from yours. However, if you decide to stand up for your nght to continue to adopt the IPC,which I urge you to do, information about our case may be helpful in yours. Sincerely, )811-44."-!-A-141 Jack Beuschel President Enclosures Z Cc: Building Code Board of Appeals Dave Grannell and Associates