70B F2015 EEM-AAA SD Ballot Results · ANSI/NETA MTS, Maintenance Testing Specifications for...

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

To: NFPA Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment Maintenance

From: Colleen Kelly, Administrator, Technical Projects

Date: January 14, 2015

Subject: NFPA 70B Second Draft TC Ballot Results (F2015)

According to the ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.

22 Members Eligible to Vote 3 Not Returned (Orr, Staires, Urdinola) 19 Members voted Affirmative on All Revisions 0 Members voted Affrimative w/Comment on one or more Revision 0 Members voted Negative on one or more Revision 0 Members voted to Abstain on one or more Revision

The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each second revision.

There are two criteria necessary for each second revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2/3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined.

(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11

affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)

(2) Example for Affirmative 2/3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1

member did not return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12)

As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions

Second Revision No. 10-NFPA 70B-2014 [ Section No. 7.1.3 ]

7.1.3

Chapter 1 of NFPA 70E covers electrical safety-related work practices and procedures for employees whowork on or near exposed energized electrical conductors or circuit parts in workplaces that are included inthe scope of that standard. These practices and procedures are intended to provide for employee safetyrelative to electrical hazards in the workplace. All maintenance personnel should confirm that therequirements of NFPA 70E are adhered to when where performing electrical maintenance procedures.

7.1.3.1

The following are some of the considerations as required by in Article 110 of NFPA 70E:

(1) Training requirements (see 110.2)

(2) Electrical safety program (see 110.1)

(3) Use of electrical equipment (see 110.4)

7.1.3.2


(1) Verification of an electrically safe work condition (see 120.1)

(2) De-energized electrical equipment that has lockout/tagout devices applied(see 120.2)

(3) Temporary protective grounding equipment (see 120.3)

7.1.3.3


(1) Energized work [see 130.2(A)]

(2) Approach boundaries to energized electrical conductors or circuit parts for shock protection(see130.4)

(3) Test instruments and equipment use (see 130.4)

(4) Limited approach boundary [see 130.4(C)]

(5) Other precautions for personnel activities (see 130.6)

(6) Personal and other protective equipment (see 130.7)

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Christopher Coache

Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Dec 03 14:18:48 EST 2014

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Replaced "as required by" with "in" to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.

Response Message:

Ballot Results

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

1 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

This item has passed ballot

22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All

0 Affirmative with Comments

0 Negative with Comments

0 Abstention

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.

Green, Dennis M.

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


2 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM


8.6.6

When repairing, rebuilding, and/or remanufacturing listed equipment, the work should be conducted by aqualified person or organization to assure that no changes are made to the equipment that mightvoid prevent the equipment listing and that the product continues to meet the from meeting the applicableperformance and safety requirements used to list the equipment .( [ See also NFPA 791 and OSHA Safety& Health Information Bulletin (SHIB), "Certification of Workplace Products by Nationally RecognizedTesting Laboratories."] .)




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Although OSHA's SHIB is not law, it is a valuable information tool (from an authoritative source), tofurther educate purchasing, engineering, operation, and maintenance in ensuring a safe workplaceat plants with hazardous (classified) locations. Therefore the SHIB should be highlighted as asignificant resource for individuals concerned with listed equipment used in hazardous locations.Thus this should warrant a specific "see also" reference within the body of the 70B standard.

Major Chemical, Petrochemical and Refining operations are diligent to ensure that only listedequipment be installed in hazardous (classified) locations. But at the maintenance level there is oftena lack of understanding of key product attributes of listed equipment that if compromised, could voida third party listing and/or create an unsafe device. Therefore it is critical that standards highlightinformation from an authoritative source that gives the reader an understanding of what canpotentially create an unsafe device with noncompliance to OSHA regulations.

The term "void" is replaced with respect to third party listing. It is the equipment that is underconsideration rather than the listing.

ResponseMessage:

Public Comment No. 6-NFPA 70B-2014 [Section No. 8.6.6]

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


3 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.

Green, Dennis M.

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


4 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM


8.6.7

If required, the The AHJ can assess the acceptability of modifications to determine if the modifications aresignificant enough to require re-evaluation of the modified product by the organization that listed theequipment.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Removed "if required" to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.

Green, Dennis M.

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey


5 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


6 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Second Revision No. 13-NFPA 70B-2014 [ Sections 8.11.2, 8.11.3 ]

8.11.2 Methods for Verifying Proper Tightness After Initial Installation.

Inspect electrical connections and terminations for high resistance using one or more of the followingmethods:

(1) Use a low-resistance ohmmeter to compare connection and termination resistance values to valuesof similar connections and terminations. Investigate values that deviate from those of similarconnections or terminations by more than 50 percent of the lowest value in accordance withANSI/NETA MTS, Maintenance Testing Specifications for Electrical Power Equipment and Systems.

(2) Verify the tightness of accessible connections and terminations using a calibrated torquemeasurement tool in accordance with 8.11.3 , 8.11.4 , and 8.11.5 .

(3) Perform a thermographic survey. (See Section 11.17.)

8.11.3 Checking Tightness When Where There Are No Signs of Degradation.

After a connection or termination is torqued to the specified value there can be metal relaxation. It is notappropriate to check an existing connection or termination for tightness to the prescribed specified valuewith a calibrated torque measurement tool. Doing so can result in an improperly terminated conductor orcause damage to the connection and might void the listing. One industry practice is to use a calibratedtorque measuring tool to check existing connections and terminations at 90% 90 percent of the specifiedtorque value as determined in Section 8.11.1 8.11.1 8.11 . If the screw or bolt does not move, the existingconnection or termination is considered properly torqued. If the screw or bolt moves it is an indication theconnection or termination is not properly torqued and the connection or termination should be reinstalled.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Revised 8.11.2(2) to reference sections which provide specific procedures to verify tightnessof connections.

Section 8.11.1 is the applicable specific reference section to determine the proper originalinstallation torque value.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All


7 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.

Green, Dennis M.

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


8 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Second Revision No. 14-NFPA 70B-2014 [ Section No. 14.3.11.1 [Excluding any

Sub-Sections] ]

Luminaires (fixtures) shall should be inspected to verify that they are properly grounded.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: "Shall" was changed to "should" to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.

Green, Dennis M.

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.


9 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


10 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Second Revision No. 2-NFPA 70B-2014 [ Section No. 15.9.4.1.1 ]

15.9.4.1.1*

Battery chargers play a critical role in maintaining batteries because they supply normal dc requirementsand maintain batteries at appropriate levels of charge. Chargers should be set and maintained accordingto manufacturers' instructions. Charger output voltage should be set and periodically verified (at leastonce per year) to be in accordance with the battery manufacturers' instructions. Battery chargers shouldbe maintained in accordance with the charger manufacturer’s instructions.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Delete the second sentence as it is redundant to the subsequent two sentences.

Response Message:

Public Comment No. 8-NFPA 70B-2014 [Section No. 15.9.4.1.1]

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.


11 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Green, Dennis M.

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


12 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Second Revision No. 3-NFPA 70B-2014 [ Section No. 15.9.4.3 [Excluding any

Sub-Sections] ]

Personnel should be aware of the types of hazards associated with stationary batteries, such asflammable/explosive gas hazards, chemical hazards, electric shock hazards, and arc flash/thermalhazards. Not all stationary batteries have the same types or degrees of hazards. Personnel mustunderstand the potential hazards and do a risk assessment prior to any work per Section 7.1 and NFPA70E. Personnel should also follow the manufacturer's instructions. As a minimum, the safety precautions in15.9.4.3.1 through 15.9.4.3.5 should be observed. IEEE 1657, IEEE Recommended Practice forPersonnel Qualifications for Installation and Maintenance of Stationary Batteries, provides levelsrecommended provides recommended curriculum for various skill levels. (See 15.9.4.1.2.)




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Delete the unnecessary word "level".

Response Message:

Public Comment No. 9-NFPA 70B-2014 [Section No. 15.9.4.3 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria


13 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.

Green, Dennis M.

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


14 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM


33.2.5 Emergency Response.

Following emergency response actions, personnel should maintain vigilance regarding potential shockand fire hazards. Internal shorting due to mechanical damage and/or water ingress from fire-fightingefforts could exist even though the array might be disconnected and might appear to be de-energized.Removal of damaged panels should be performed with the appropriate PPE. (See also UL FirefighterSafety and Photovoltaic Installations Research Project.)




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Added a reference to provide additional guidance.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.

Green, Dennis M.


15 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


16 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Second Revision No. 16-NFPA 70B-2014 [ Section No. C.1.3.11 ]

C.1.3.11 OSHA Publications.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Directorate of TechnicalSupport and Emergency Management, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities: Safety& Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) 02-16-2010, "Certification of Work place Products by NationallyRecognized Testing Laboratories".




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Document is referenced within body of NFPA 70B and should be referenced in Chapter 2.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.

Green, Dennis M.


17 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


18 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Second Revision No. 18-NFPA 70B-2014 [ Section No. Q.6 ]

Q.6 Hospital Electrical Panel Fire.

A fire necessitated the evacuation of patients on the fourth and fifth two floors of a healthcare andemergency services hospital. The fire originated in an electric panel on the wall of a patient’s room on thefourth floor . There was never any routine inspection or preventive maintenance performed on theselow-voltage panels. Fire and smoke damage resulted and business was interrupted due to the loss of useof those floors for patient care due to during the cleanup and restoration period. The insurance loss costpayment was in excess of $320,000 Costs exceeded $300,000 (U.S.).

Supplemental Information

File Name Description

Case_Histories_qQ.6_revised.docx revised case history q.6.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The case history was modified to be a more general example.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian


19 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.

Green, Dennis M.

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


20 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Second Revision No. 17-NFPA 70B-2014 [ Sections Q.10, Q.11, Q.12, Q.13 ]

Q.10 Infrared Inspection Prevents Potential Failure and Outage of 20 MVA mVA Transformer.

The observation at the initial infrared survey was indicated the transformer was not cooling properly. Theinfrared image showed an uneven heat pattern on the transformer cooling fins. This condition could resultin the transformer overheating and a breakdown of the oil — especially in the summer heat . Failure of thissubstation transformer would result in loss of power to business businesses and homeowners on thewest end of the grid .

After consultations between the client owner and repair firms, it was determined that there could beseveral causes for this cooling problem: the transformer could be low on oil, the transformer could haveshifted (tilted on an angle), or sludge could cause be causing a blockage in the fins.

When the client opened the observation port at the top of the transformer was opened , they inspectorsnoted that approximately half of the tubes were covered with oil. The oil-covered tubes measure Theinitial infrared image showed an uneven heat on the right-hand side of the 5/6/09 thermogram. The clientadded approximately 25 gallons pattern. The fins properly filled with oil showed a hotter surfacetemperature than those fins that were not properly filled with oil. After adding the appropriate amount of oilto the transformer and recharged re-charging the nitrogen blanket. As a result, , another infrared imagewas taken. The infrared image after the 6/1/09 thermogram repair indicated a balanced an even heatload pattern across the cooling fins . Detection of this the abnormal condition and the corrective actionsprevented potential failure and loss of power, and improved the reliability of the client’s owner’soperations. (See also Section 11.7.)

Q.11 Hospital Transformer Failure.

The 2500 kVA main power transformer for a hospital’s emergency generator hospital failed, whichresulted in fire damage to the transformer and the associated bus duct. The insurance loss costs were$138,905 Costs exceeded $130,000 (U.S.). The transformer was less than five years old. After the initialinstallation, an electrical contractor added cooling fan kits to the transformer. It is unknown whether thisattributed to the failure. To avoid any potential business interruption, a readily available replacementtransformer was installed instead of the original specialty transformer due to the several months lead timefor a like-kind replacement.

What triggered the need to alter the manufacturer’s design and install additional cooling fan kits? Didoverloading, improper maintenance, or loose connections create an overheating condition? Insurancecompany case study reports indicate 52% percent of transformer failures are preventable. Failures forrelatively new transformers can could be due to localized damage, limitations in design/application, andimproper maintenance that does not allow for detecting symptoms of developing faults. Site testing andcommissioning provide a baseline for future maintenance. Defects of poor workmanship will usually causea transformer to fail in very early stages of its life. (See also Sections 8.11, 11.11, and 11.17.)


21 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Q.12 Office Building Drive System Loose Connection Results in Arcing Fault.

A 350-ton centrifugal chiller unit failed at a commercial real estate office building. The building engineerfound that the chiller had no power to the panel. The chiller was used a few weeks prior due to warmweather, but was not used in the last week. He found that the 800 A breaker had tripped. He alsonoticed week prior to failure. After the building engineer noted an odor in the room , typical of electricaldamage. Because in the chiller room, it was not immediately needed, discovered that there was nofurther investigation until the following Tuesday. The engineer performed some power to the chiller paneland the 800A breaker had tripped. Some basic electrical tests were performed on the transformer in thecabinet and on some of the cabling to check for , with no obvious short circuits or ground faults found . Henoticed There was some spattering around the load side of the 800 A breaker, but did it was notknow determined if it this was old or new . He did not perform any tests and no test were performed onthe breaker. No further investigation was conducted at the time because the chiller was not needed.

The chiller panel cabinet door was closed, and the breaker set to on reset . As soon as the breaker wasclosed a severe arcing fault occurred within the drive system enclosure panel . A service company wasthen called in and determined that the unit could not be repaired. The 800 A 800A circuit breaker for theunits drive system suffered an arcing fault due to a loose connection. Insurance loss costs were Costsexceeded $100,000 (U.S.).

Proper safe work practices and maintenance procedures should always be followed. When anovercurrent protective device opens as a result of a fault, OSHA §f1910 1910 .334(b)(2) and NFPA 70E donot permit reclosing a circuit breaker or replacing fuses until it is safe to do so. The drive system shouldhave been thoroughly checked out after the first circuit breaker trip to determine the cause, assess theaction to remedy the failure, and ensure it is safe to re-energize the system. It is not known if regularmaintenance was performed on the drive system, but it’s It’s possible that a regular preventivemaintenance program that included visual inspection, cleaning, testing, and infrared inspection couldhave identified and corrected the root cause before the first circuit breaker trip was necessary.

Q.13 Hospital MCC Fails and Air Conditioning Down.

The plant operator heard a loud bang and found smoke coming from the chiller plant MCC. Failure of anthe MCC for chillers the chiller plant resulted in the loss of critical air conditioning for to ahospital hospital’s operating room. As a result, and the entire facility. Due to the failure, procedures in theoperating room were cancelled. Lead times for replacement MCC parts were six to eight weeks.Insurance loss costs were $425,498 Emergency temporary repairs that included a transformer rentalneeded to be made to restore partial operations. The fuses for the dry-type transformer that providedpower to the MCC had two open fuses and extensive arcing damage was found along the MCC bus bar.The MCC was considered aged as it was thirty years old. Costs exceeded $400,000 (U.S.).

Periodic infrared inspection was conducted on the MCC by a contractor. It was not known if any abnormalconditions were identified during those inspections. Infrared testing is only part of a preventivemaintenance program and is helpful in identifying defects on exposed energized parts that have a load atthe time of inspection. A comprehensive PM program that includes other testing, like ultrasound andelectrical tests, visual inspection, and checking for tightness and proper torque, particularly on the bus barfor the MCC, could have identified the defect or problem before failure. Age of equipment should also beconsidered in determining frequency of maintenance intervals.

Supplemental Information

File Name Description

Case_Histories_Q.10_Q13_revised.docx revised case histories for q.10-q13.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



22 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The case histories were modified to be more general examples.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


22 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Orr, Gregory Todd

Staires, John E.

Urdinola, Robert

Affirmative All

Bingham, Richard

Bishop, Thomas H.

Brecheisen, Brian

Butcher, Aaron

Corbett, Adria

Crnko, Timothy

Evans, James B.

Green, Dennis M.

Grimes, Ryan

Hall, Jeffrey

Harris, William R.

Hickman, Palmer L.

Horne, Mark C.

Huffman, David

Johnson, Darrel

Manche, Alan

Moshiri, Ahmad A.

Rempe, Kenneth J.

White, James R.


23 of 23 1/14/2015 10:02 AM

Date post:	22-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	12 times
Download:	0 times

70B F2015 EEM-AAA SD Ballot Results · ANSI/NETA MTS, Maintenance Testing Specifications for...

Documents