Can you paint the front of a receptacle?

Archive Public Archive
#1

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Quote:
Question: Can you paint the front of a receptacle if you do not get any paint on the contacts?

Answer: No, receptacles are not evaluated with paint on the device.

Following is a quote from UL:

"A receptacle which has been painted other than authorized by the file procedure, for example, "Charlie home owner, etc., would no longer be UL Listed. The introduction of paint, especially on the face of the outlet could reduce spacing or form a tracking either line to line or line to ground."

In addition, to the potential hazards associated with reduced spacing or tracking, it is possible the paint itself could be conductive.

Courtesy: www.nema.org


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm
#2

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


What “spacing” are they talking about?

#3

Originally Posted By: dhadler
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


They’re probably referring to the actual slots that the plug goes into, BUT, Iv’e never written anything in my reports about them, do any of you guys write’m up icon_question.gif


That just seems way to nit-picky in my books. I'm interested to find out what the rest of you do about this. I may have to change the way I do things ![icon_question.gif](upload://t2zemjDOQRADd4xSC3xOot86t0m.gif)

--
Darrell Hadler
Five Star Home Inspections
Medicine Hat, Alberta CANADA

#4

Originally Posted By: jbushart
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


This sounds more like a topic for some “Urinating Olympics” among code monks than for actively engaged home inspectors, to me. How much paint qualifies as a painted receptacle? What if a receptacle has some dried spaghetti sauce splattered on it, instead? NEMA is not NFPA and, until someone presents some credible cause for concern, I’m leaving this write-up for the alarmists.

#5

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


James,


Do you believe in some of the codes but not all of the codes? Do you think we should follow some of them, but not others? Which ones would you like us to follow?

I believe you misunderstood the information that we being passed along. While the information was furnished by NEMA, it looked to me like UL was the author of that information.

I do call out painted receptacles and recommend their replacement. While I did it because I consider them to be altered products, it seems to me like they have substantiated the hazards involved with painting the front of receptacles.

Good enough for me! ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)

--
Joe Myers
A & N Inspections, Inc.
http://anii.biz

#6

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


I don’t know of any code violated here. How conductive do you think any “unleaded” paint can be? If this is lead paint that is a bigger hazard than the painted receptacle.


I agree they might be pointed out as “ugly” and they may be old and worn out (which should be noted) but I would save the “hazard” chit for a real hazard.

#7

Originally Posted By: jbushart
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Joseph,


You asked, so here goes.

Almost every industry has its "codes". Another description for "code" in an industry is "minimum acceptable standard".

When a food manufacturer does his work by his "code", he is allowed to process his luncheon meat with a certain amount of rat feces. If the rat feces exceeds the code, and a code inspector finds out, he cannot sell that meat. However, when I eat a bologna sandwich, I prefer to have NO rat poop, thank you.

Food inspectors who inspect by "code" do not provide me a service to the degree that I would pay them for it. That is why they are paid by the government and make considerably less money than me.

Building inspectors who inspect by "code" do not necessarily provide a service to the degree that I would pay them for it. That is why they are paid by the government and make considerably less money than me.

While it is important to know what the minimum acceptable standards are, it is not correct to say that something that "meets code" is necessarily safe. For that, a home inspector is paid more.

Sitting around trying to interpret the minimum acceptable standard to ridiculous degrees - to me - is a distraction from the real job. If the NFPA publishes in NEC 2008, due to real potential for fire or electrocution, that a plug in device cannot have paint on it, I will write it up. Until it is published, or until it has been determined that a real danger exists, I will not.

Your turn.

#8

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


U/L never said it was a hazard, in fact they said "… receptacles are not evaluated with paint on the device. " so they are admitting they don’t have a clue if it is a problem.


It is just the “manufacturer’s association” that says you should buy a new one if it gets some paint on it.


Imagine that icon_wink.gif

#9

Originally Posted By: jbushart
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


I’m with you, Greg.

–
Home Inspection Services of Missouri


www.missourihomeinspection.com


"We're NACHI. Get over it."

www.monachi.org
#10

Originally Posted By: pdacey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


I only write it up if the build up of paint would prevent someone from being able to plug in an appliance.


I always write up GFCI receptacles that are painted. The thinnest coat of paint can cause the buttons not to operate properly.

--
Slainte!

Patrick Dacey
swi@satx.rr.com
TREC # 6636
www.southwestinspections.com

#11

Originally Posted By: jbushart
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Thanks, Patrick. That’s a perfect example of what I was saying. Your concern regarding painted GFCI receptacle is based upon your experience and your knowledge as to how it is supposed to function. For the safety of your client, you would write it up. A code inspector, on the other hand, would pay it no regard for his book does not refer to it - yet. Certainly, someday it will.

–
Home Inspection Services of Missouri


www.missourihomeinspection.com


"We're NACHI. Get over it."

www.monachi.org
#12

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Quote:
Following is a quote from UL:

"A receptacle which has been painted other than authorized by the file procedure, for example, "Charlie home owner, etc., would no longer be UL Listed. The introduction of paint, especially on the face of the outlet could reduce spacing or form a tracking either line to line or line to ground."

In addition, to the potential hazards associated with reduced spacing or tracking, it is possible the paint itself could be conductive.


As for the rat feces, I would have to say that while I agree with you that is an unrealistic expectation. Just like the homeowner that went to use that painted receptacle and it would not function as intended because the buttons were painted, or the plug would not enter the receptacle because it was painted closed.

Although I did not mean to, it sure seems like I have offended and if that is the case I apologize. What I was saying then and now is that you are picking and choosing which entity you want to believe and follow, whether it be UL, the NEC or NEMA. Do you think there is any validity to what UL is saying?

Being a modest person and always having room to learn, I tend to believe in what UL is stating and I will continue to write them up, until proven otherwise. If you have any proof that could not happen, please share it with us.

--
Joe Myers
A & N Inspections, Inc.
http://anii.biz
#13

Originally Posted By: jbushart
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Sorry for coming across as having been offended, Joe. It’s not the case and I absolutely love (and learn) from healthy debate.


On another thread, we were discussing another message board (you probably read it every now and then as I do) where a group of self proclaimed home inspection wizards debate "code" as if it were biblical. These are the guys my frustration is aimed at.

Anyway, I think the difference we have here is really our interpretation on what is "written up", so to speak. If I found paint on a receptacle (we have yet to determine how much paint we are talking about) that was not GFCI, I would not comment on it in my report. If I found paint on a GFCI receptacle, I would not address it as a major concern, but would recommend that it (along with all GFCI receptacles) be tested on a regular basis for they have all been known to fail.

Now that I know, I just might also include the UL's concern for painted receptacles in all of my reports, just in case there is a hidden receptacle somewhere with paint on it. I would not, however, recommend a trained electrical specialist to remove/replace the device prior to escrow without something more than a question mark from UL.

--
Home Inspection Services of Missouri
www.missourihomeinspection.com

"We're NACHI. Get over it."

www.monachi.org

#14

Originally Posted By: rmoore
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Had a home about 2 years ago where almost every outlet in the general living areas and bedrooms was like this…


![](upload://cEOKDGAtJ1sjAIgxez8QLLVDpgN.jpeg)

Clearly not a hazard, as no-one will be able to plug anything in!

Seriously though, if there's any chance that paint could have been, or be, forced onto the contacts, and create arcing, then I write them up as needing replacement. The agent asked me why the ones in the photo couldn't just be scraped clean. I explained arcing to her again (it was already in the report) and that there was no reliable way to ensure the contacts were clean. Beside which, it would be faster and safer to just replace them.

I wouldn't get excited about a thin coat of paint with nothing inside the holes.

--
Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com

#15

Originally Posted By: pdacey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


That’s an awesome picture. Notice how there isn’t a speck of paint on the cover plate. So they were careful enough to remove the plate when painting, but then went right over the receptacle. Classic icon_lol.gif

–
Slainte!


Patrick Dacey
swi@satx.rr.com
TREC # 6636
www.southwestinspections.com
#16

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Richard,


I do consider that a hazard, especially if a child is trying to plug something into that receptacle. It is just way too easy for a child to become electrocuted, trying to force a plug into a painted receptacle.

As for the GFCI receptacles, I would rather see them replaced then gamble with a life. For a simple $13, it could save a life and that is what I am most concerned about.

While I agree that what UL is stating is a little far fetched, I would be sincerely interested in learning if it has ever happened and what the frequency of that happening is.

Maybe Joe T will come back and share some more information with us.

James,

I certainly can understand what you are saying. I did not mean to imply that you should call them out, I was just wondering why you would not. I like others opinions and I also like to share mine. With this type of career, learning is itself a full time job.

While Joe T may seem to be a little anal retentive at times, his intentions are as sincere as you hold your clients interests. Many of the things he posts are meant to make you think about what you are inspecting, many of them so casual that you may not even recognize them any longer.

I like him and I admire his only desire to stand up and take all this criticism about himself because he is trying to make us better than we were before we met him. ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)

--
Joe Myers
A & N Inspections, Inc.
http://anii.biz

#17

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Richard, is there masking tape under that paint?


Joe, I read the whole note but as soon as they said "not evaluated" the rest was just spectlation. This is a "testing" lab. If they didn't do the test their answer is just a statement than won't attract lawyers. (Hence all the "could" and "is possible" sort of language)
The bottom line is they don't know and they are covering their bottom <line>.

#18

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Joe Myers


I posted this message because I too have never heard of that UL information.

I would imagine that the standard for receptacles has something in it on the subject of paint, but I don't have access to one.

The UL website at: www.ul.com may allow a question to be asked concerning this issue.

I will see if I can get someone to give us a more detailed reply.

In the meantime why don't you and the others take a look at the rest of the FAQ's here: http://www.nema.org/stds/fieldreps/faqs.cfm

There are some interesting Questions and Answers.

--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

#19

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Joe T,


Thanks for sharing that with us. I have never heard of that either, but again, I will continue to call painted receptacles when they are causing problems. When you come against the one Richard posted, its kind of a no brainer. When it comes to GFCI that are painted so they don't function, again is it a no brainer.

I look at it as if it were my house and someone did that sloppy of type of work, I would want them all checked out too. Not for me, I can replace them, more for children which as a parent I am obligated to protect. ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)

--
Joe Myers
A & N Inspections, Inc.
http://anii.biz

#20

Originally Posted By: rmoore
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


jmyers wrote:
Richard,

I do consider that a hazard, especially if a child is trying to plug something into that receptacle.


Ummm...I used the sarcasm ![icon_rolleyes.gif](upload://iqxt7ABYC2TEBomNkCmZARIrQr6.gif) smiley for a reason. You'll have to excuse my attempt at humor.

Greg Fretwell wrote:
Richard, is there masking tape under that paint?


Nope, but 10 cents worth of it would have saved a bunch of time and money.

--
Richard Moore
Rest Assured Inspection Services
Seattle, WA
www.rainspect.com