Panel contamination pictures?

[ren ramsey]

Does anyone have any pictures of some panel malfunctions due to contamination inside the panel like paint. Something like arcing or melted buss bars would be nice. I see paint contamination a lot but never actually see it causing a problem. I'd like to be able to show someone a picture from what happens the next time a realtor tells me that a little paint is no big deal.

[ren ramsey]

I hate to say it but, the realtor is probably correct .paint sprayed on bus bars can't be correct. Foreign material in a panel cant be correct. There is no NEC suitable means to remove panel contamination according to my CE engineer provider. So I gotta call it out.

[Jerry Peck]

paint sprayed on bus bars can't be correct. Foreign material in a panel cant be correct. There is no NEC suitable means to remove panel contamination according to my CE engineer provider. So I gotta call it out.

You are correct to call it out, all home inspectors should call it out.

When I have a contractor who does not comprehend that there are limitations for a reason even though I do not have a photo of the potential result to show - in my case it is usually "How much difference does 1" make?"), I explain it this way (works quite well too, especially on a balcony or deck which has not had the guard installed yet): I have the person take one normal step, I measure that step heel to heel, let's say 23", I then measure 22" back from the edge of the balcony and ask them to stand with their heels at the 22" line (they do as they are trying to figure out what I am doing), then I ask them to take one of their normal 23" steps forward ... some will start too take that step and then realize what just happened, some understand it right away ... that 1" beyond the edge of the balcony is going to make one heck of a lot of difference in what happens ... :cool:

[Jerry Peck]

Does anyone have any pictures of some panel malfunctions due to contamination inside the panel like paint. Something like arcing or melted buss bars would be nice. I see paint contamination a lot but never actually see it causing a problem. I'd like to be able to show someone a picture from what happens the next time a realtor tells me that a little paint is no big deal.

Ren,

"I'd like to be able to show someone a picture from what happens"

If someone has a photo it would be quite appropriate to have the photo posted for us to see, if someone feels a photo of an electrical panel is inappropriate then they would not need to click on the photos.

It is a big enough deal for the NEC to not permit any contamination of any type in the panel, just like it is a big enough deal for NEMA to state that all (their list is basically all, not "all" as in each and every last piece", but "all" as in the practical use of the term) electrical equipment needs to be replaced or, where feasible, returned to the factory for reconditioning after the equipment gets wet (i.e.,. a flood), it is not to be dried out and reused, even if someone has not seen a problem from a particular piece of equipment or not - there are enough highly qualified people who know what is needed, in the case of panel interiors which are contaminated with paint overspray the requirement is that there not be any, and with no permitted way to clean it off that means replacing the panel interior.

[ren ramsey]

For starters, I don't do a code inspection. My state SOP basically forbids it. So In the case of things in the house that can cause a life safety issue I revert back to what the manufacture says or If I know the code has forbid it for a long long time I may note it without referencing the code, but I will always err on the side of caution when it comes to life safety issues like a fire. I did not say I would note it if there was one drop of paint but if there is over spray into the interior of panel, or covering up the breaker information I will point it out. In a lot of cases the contamination in a panel is due to a new installation so problems down the road may not have had time to manifest themselves. What happens if I don't and the buyers sell the house in two years and the next inspector points it out. I probably will get a call on something as expensive to replace as a panel. Electrical issues are too important to me not to point out.

[John Kogel]

Ren, check back in a day or two. I have some pics of burnt stuff 4 U in the archives. :D

[Bruce Ramsey]

For starters, I don't do a code inspection. My state SOP basically forbids it.

NC does not forbid a code inspection. It just makes it virtually impossible to document items in a home inspection report as a violation of the North Carolina State Residential Building Code. Snip from the NC SOP to follow: Underlining and Italics added by me.

(a2) State Building Code. – If a licensee includes a deficiency in the written report of a home inspection that is stated as a violation of the North Carolina State Residential Building Code, the licensee must do all of the following:

(1) Determine the date of construction, renovation, and any subsequent installation or replacement of any system or component of the home.

(2) Determine the State Building Code in effect at the time of construction, renovation, and any subsequent installation or replacement of any system or component of the home.

(3) Conduct the home inspection using the building codes in effect at the time of the construction, renovation, and any subsequent installation or replacement of any system or component of the home.

In order to fully inform the client, if the licensee describes a deficiency as a violation of the State Building Code in the written report, then the report shall include the information described in subdivision (1) of this subsection and photocopies of the relevant provisions of the State Building Code used pursuant to subdivision (2) of this subsection to determine any violation stated in the report. The Board may adopt rules that are more restrictive on the use of the State Building Code by home inspectors.

So don't. Reference the International Residential Code, not the North Carolina Code. NC adopts the IRC usually 1 year after the IRC is released. Let the real estate agent and licensing board rant and rave all they like. Then quietly point to the law where it states NC Residential Code and where you referenced the IRC.

[Gregory Booth]

[QUOTE=Jim Abram;240019............ I have never seen or heard of a panel box arcing or burning up because of overspray.[/QUOTE]

.......I am only adding this comment because I've had the dubious pleasure of previous discussions with yourself. It seems as though the fact that YOU haven't seen or heard of some occurrence, that it never has been and never will be........Greg.

[Bruce Ramsey]

We all have to decide what to report and what to ignore. If I see overspray on the main buss bars and there are openings with no breakers, I report it. It is likely that someone is going to add more breakers. The paint acts as an insulator preventing good contact between the breaker and the panel. Its wrong and it can cause problems. Report it. And since you are in NC, report it as a Safety Issue. Safety Items are the loophole in the NC SOP reporting. As long as you call it a safety issue, ANYTHING can go in the report.

If you have any doubts, ask Wilson Faussel. He is the NC report reviewer for the licensing board. He is a member of NCLHIA and you can find his contact infor through them. Or contact Fred Herndon, board member. You can tell them I sent you. They know how to contact me and complain if I am wrong.

Also if you dont report it, when they sell the house the next home inspector will report it. Now your client has to pay to fix the damaged panel box when the current seller should be paying. Ideally the painter should be footing the bill but they are usually long gone.

[Jerry Peck]

The proper quoting of the code section is this: (all cap and bold text is mine for highlighting)
- 110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work. - - Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.
- - - Informational Note: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA 1-2010, Standard Practice of Good Workmanship in Electrical Construction, and other ANSI-approved installation standards.
- -(B) Integrity of Electrical Equipment and Connections. Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues. There shall be no damaged parts that MAY adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating.

First: The part which states "shall be no damaged part that may adversely affect safe operation" ... one very critical word in that is "may" ... and ANY contamination "may" affect the safe operation of the electrical equipment.

Next: The part which states "such as" indicates and means that the list is not all inclusive, the list is only representing SOME conditions which need to be considered and is suggesting conditions to the inspector to get them to think about what they are looking at and to look for ANY type of contamination or damage which MAY adversely affect the safe operation of the electrical equipment.

To anyone who is promoting that ANY contamination is not a reasonable threshold should provide sufficient and adequate supporting documentation to support their contention that the acceptable standard is not "There shall be no ... " and then provide additional supporting documentation which establishes the acceptable level of such contamination or damage is acceptable, and that such documentation has been accepted by NFPA in establishing the acceptable level for the NEC.

Regarding water damaged electrical equipment, there is this:
- https://www.nema.org/Standards/Pages/Evaluating-Water-Damaged-Electrical-Equipment.aspx
- (click the "Download" link, then click "I Agree", then sign in or create an account)
- Note what the publication is for: "This publication provides information on how to evaluate electrical equipment that has been exposed to water through flooding, fire fighting activities, hurricanes, etc."
- Scroll down the "Replace Equipment" column to see the items which are to be replaced.

29 CFR 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Standards, 1910.303: (bold is mine for highlighting)
- 1910.303(b)(7)(iii)
- - Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, may not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues.

If this sounds condescending to the reader, it is not intended that way. It is, however, intended to explain to certain person or persons what the MINIMUM standard is.

[ren ramsey]

Ren, check back in a day or two. I have some pics of burnt stuff 4 U in the archives. :D Thanks I look forward to them.

[Mark Reinmiller]

paint sprayed on bus bars can't be correct. Foreign material in a panel cant be correct. There is no NEC suitable means to remove panel contamination according to my CE engineer provider. So I gotta call it out.

Are you saying the NEC does not allow cleaning paint off a buss bar?

[Jerry Peck]

Are you saying the NEC does not allow cleaning paint off a buss bar?

Mark,

To date, there are no paint removal products available which are listed and labeled as approved for use to clean paint off buss bars - at least not that anyone I know has found.

There was some stuff advertised for that use, but it was not listed or labeled or approved for that use - just the manufacturer said you could use it for that.

[ren ramsey]

Are you saying the NEC does not allow cleaning paint off a buss bar?I am. If you have a NEC approved cleaning method please forward it so I can correct my states CE courses.

[Mark Reinmiller]

Mark,

To date, there are no paint removal products available which are listed and labeled as approved for use to clean paint off buss bars - at least not that anyone I know has found.

There was some stuff advertised for that use, but it was not listed or labeled or approved for that use - just the manufacturer said you could use it for that.

Its paint and metal. I'm generally a by-the-book kinda guy, but I would not care what someone used to clean paint off of metal.

What am I missing here?

[Jerry Peck]

Its paint and metal. I'm generally a by-the-book kinda guy, but I would not care what someone used to clean paint off of metal.

What am I missing here?

Mark,

What product do you have, or have you seen, which is acceptable for use within the context of this sentence in the code section I posted: "Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues."?

[Billy Stephens]

show someone a picture from what happens the next time a realtor tells me that a little paint is no big deal.

This is what a Service Panel looks like when there is a problem.

[Mark Reinmiller]

Mark,

What product do you have, or have you seen, which is acceptable for use within the context of this sentence in the code section I posted: "Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues."?

Once the paint is removed the internal parts, etc. are no longer contaminated.

[Jerry Peck]

Once the paint is removed the internal parts, etc. are no longer contaminated.

Mark,

The question, though, is what do you use to remove the paint? What meets the restrictions of the code and has been tested and proven to not be just another contaminate itself?

Sure, the paint can be scraped or abraded off - but that is not permitted. The paint can be cleaned off with a cleaner or solvent - but that is not permitted either.

Thus the question is: What would you use to remove the paint which has been tested and listed for that use? It would need to have been tested to show that it does not leave a residue which adversely affects the electrical equipment, then listed and labeled to allow the user to know that it is approved for that use.

[John Kogel]

These are my pics and I present them as evidence that I saw things and took pics of them.
:D

[John Kogel]

This is what a Service Panel looks like when there is a problem.One must never use a torch to remove paint overspray in an electrical panel. :D

[Garry Sorrells]

One must never use a torch to remove paint overspray in an electrical panel. :D


I thought that carburetor cleaner was the recommended method...:becky:

May be what was used in Billy's picture...

[Billy Stephens]

One must never use a torch to remove paint overspray in an electrical panel. :D

You got there B-4 the Fire Department.
* mine was with the Fire Investigator.:(

[Lon Henderson]

So, back to the Ren's original query.

I've seen heavily sprayed panels with paint and drywall texture. I write it up everytime........but I've never seen evidence of problems arising from those conditions (although I've seen minor rusting in panels with drywall mud in them). Therefore, I don't have any photos to share showing problems arising from painted panels.

For me, this is similar to double lugging neutrals on the neutral bar.......while wrong and potentially a problem; I've never seen evidence of problems from that either.

I've seen panels with wasp nests packed into them and yet no evidence of problems arising from that either.

[Scott Patterson]

While a few paint overspray specks do not upset me or the rotational spin of the earth, can anyone post what a major panel manufacturer says about paint overspray in their panels?

[Mark Reinmiller]

Mark,

The question, though, is what do you use to remove the paint? What meets the restrictions of the code and has been tested and proven to not be just another contaminate itself?

Sure, the paint can be scraped or abraded off - but that is not permitted. The paint can be cleaned off with a cleaner or solvent - but that is not permitted either.

Thus the question is: What would you use to remove the paint which has been tested and listed for that use? It would need to have been tested to show that it does not leave a residue which adversely affects the electrical equipment, then listed and labeled to allow the user to know that it is approved for that use.

Maybe others are seeing things that I do not see. I seldom see paint in panels because most panels are in unfinished basements or garages.

Regarding cleaning, a plastic scraper, Scotchbrite, or even Goof-off should do, and I expect that you are going to tell me that Scotchbrite will significantly abrade the metal or that Goof-off with leave a residue that will set the panel on fire.

I see a business opportunity here. I'm going to get my fingernails approved by the NEC for removing paint from panels.

[Lon Henderson]

This is from a similar thread in 2007. Someone inquired with Square D about their position concerning paint in panels and they replied with this...........

From Square D:

If any contaminant has entered the panel that cannot be removed by simply
vacuuming or wiping with a clean lint-free cloth, then we would recommend
replacing the interior of the panel. If paint, or some other contaminant, has
left labeling that is affixed to the panel unreadable, then we would recommend
replacing the complete panel. We comment in our current design of panel:
"Allowing petroleum based paint, solvents or spray to contact the non-metallic
parts of this product may adversely affect user safety and impair reliability".
This is due to the chemical reaction of the petroleum base paint or solvent to
the insulating bases used in the panel.

I am not familiar with the "Groomers Goop". However, our stance would remain the
same as stated above. If a consumer were to utilize this pet grooming product,
it would be without the Square D Company's consent or approval.

I hope that this will help with your issues. Please let me know if you would
need anything further.

Regards,
Rick Snapp
Product Technical Support Group
Square D Company - Lexington Plant
E-Mail: rick.snapp@us.schneider-electric.com

[Jerry Peck]

Regarding cleaning, a plastic scraper, Scotchbrite, or even Goof-off should do, and I expect that you are going to tell me that Scotchbrite will significantly abrade the metal or that Goof-off with leave a residue that will set the panel on fire.

Mark,

You added a word not include in the code, a plastic scraper, Scotchbrite, etc, are abrasives and abrasives are specifically stated as not being allowed - not sure why you elected to add the word "significantly" to your statement, but if you want to see when something little turns into something significant .... I will be glad to help you step off the edge of a balcony because you only stepped "a little" bit too far out past the edge ... :)

The bus bars are plated over ... ANY abrasive adversely affects that protective plating.

[Scott Patterson]

I think the reply from Square D in 2007 answers the question at hand. If the panel can not be cleaned with a lint free cloth then it needs to be replaced. This is from the manufacturer, like it or not.

Now, can a panel be cleaned? Sure it can but then you assume all risk for doing so or recommending to do so.

[Jerry Peck]

NEC 110.12 -... shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues.


Jerry here you go again making up things that are not in the code . No where in the code does it
specifically state that abrasives are not allowed.


An old saying in litigation is that, he who lies the best wins . But Jerry, you take this to new levels.

Jim,

I'm trying to figure out if you were lying when you posted the code section wording or if you were lying when you posted your other post or if you are lying about lying to try to distract readers from your lying posts (just using the lying term you thought you could toss around without getting caught in your own lying ...

... I'm trying to contemplate the different ways you may use to try to misdirect and redirect us in your reply.

This will be interesting ... :pop2:

[Jerry Peck]

Welcome to Jerry's World . Does anybody think that this is coherent ?

Hey, Billy ... you got any mo' dem der nitecraw'ers? Dat las' one ya give me taint doin' nutin' but wigglin' on the hook.

:pop2:

[Mark Reinmiller]

Mark,

You added a word not include in the code, a plastic scraper, Scotchbrite, etc, are abrasives and abrasives are specifically stated as not being allowed - not sure why you elected to add the word "significantly" to your statement, but if you want to see when something little turns into something significant .... I will be glad to help you step off the edge of a balcony because you only stepped "a little" bit too far out past the edge ... :)

The bus bars are plated over ... ANY abrasive adversely affects that protective plating.

Jerry,
you are either a man with no common sense, or have worked too long as a hired gun. A plastic scraper is an abrasive and will damage the protective plating.

I'm quite sure I could clean a little paint overspray off a panel. If you think that it is impossible and want to interpret the code that way, then go for it.

I'm done with this thread.

[Jerry Peck]

Mark,

You say you are done with this thread, just in case you check back here I have a question for you: do you wave the plastic scraper over the paint and the paint magically floats off the bus bars, or do you have to scrape (abrade) the paint off?

[Jim Port]

I was going to stay out of this, but, I feel that following the words as written versus the practical aspect are two different issues. I do not see something like latex paint over spray on the panel enclosure as an issue. Now paint on the bus is different as it is a functional and conductive part. It would probably come off with a fingernail with no adverse affect. I don't see the plastic scraper as an issue as even the plating should be harder than most plastics.

[Jerry Peck]

Jim A. stated "Reasonable people do reasonable things ."

I agree that reasonable people do reasonable things - such as:
- Reasonable electrical contractors do reasonable things such as protecting their work from the unreasonable work of other contractors who follow behind and have no regard for the work of previous contractors.
- Reasonable contractors will protect the work of previous contractors, then notify the previous contractors to be a reasonable contractor and to protect their work in the future least that work may become damage in the future if left unprotected.
- Reasonable readers and posters do not take posts and threads about paint overspray and try to twist that into one drop of paint" as one drop of paint is not "overspray", only unreasonable people try to do that.
- Reasonable people already know that if the contractor protects their work, cleans up after themselves without damaging their work, that inspectors will not have to address the contractor's shortcomings. Unreasonable people do not consider those things.
- Thus we have unreasonable people like Jim A making unreasonable posts and claims.

[jack davenport]

I too was going to avoid posting in this debate even though I have a opinion on the original posters intentions.

I am in the same camp as Jim Port. Some paint on the panel enclosure - No issue
Paint on the cover - as long as the label(s) are not covered No issue
Paint on the energized bus - A problem - I would default to the manufactures recommendation on a remedy .

Now as to the Mr. Ren Ramsey's original intention -
Getting pictures off the internet of damaged electrical equipment and passing it off as effects of paint is just unprofessional, unless you can prove 100% the damage was caused by the paint.

It would be a much more professional approach to have copies of the manufactures comments on paint on the equipment. I would report it as paint over-spray on the panelboard which is a direct violation of the national Electrical Code and voids the Underwriters Laboratory's Listing and Labeling of said equipment. Corrective action as recommended by the manufacture is replacement of the panelboard.

Side note: I used the term "Panelboard" . This is the interior removeable part of the electrical panel. The cabinet or enclosure is not a panelboard. BOTH parts make up a panel. Just some FYI :D

edited to add side note

[Jim Port]

Thanks Jack, but I am not much on camping. I prefer something with a roof and air conditioning. grin.

[Jerry Peck]

I am in the same camp as Jim Port. Some paint on the panel enclosure - No issue
Paint on the cover - as long as the label(s) are not covered No issue

I don't recall any posts which stated something to indicate disagreement with the above.

That is other than some unreasonable posts by an unreasonable person who tried to imply that the reasonable people here were implying addressing a drop of paint when the discussion has been about overspray.


Paint on the energized bus - A problem - I would default to the manufactures recommendation on a remedy .

Which is a soft lint- free cloth, not a plastic scraper or any of the other ways mentioned in this thread.

Jack, I believe that puts you with almost all the rest of us on this issue.

[Jerry Peck]

Thanks Jack, but I am not much on camping. I prefer something with a roof and air conditioning. grin.

Jim,

That's the way we go camping - big wheels under us, solid roof over us, two a/c systems, music system in the bedroom, big flat screen TV in the front, and a big windshield to look through at the outdoors. :)

[jack davenport]

Jack - Where does it state in the NEC that overspray on the panelboard is a direct violation of the NEC ?
Where does it state that the UL listing is voided by overspray?
Going back to the start of this thread , the issue is " a little paint". What is a little paint ? One drop is clearly a little paint.

OK I'll bite Lets start with

Where in the NEC does it state paint over spray is a NEC Violation ?

110.12(B) ( Bold & underlining by me)
(B) Integrity of Electrical Equipment and Connections.
Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues.
There shall be no damaged parts that may adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating.

Where does it say The UL listing is voided ?

The panelboard is listed & labeled WITHOUT any paint on the buss. By adding to paint to the buss you are altering ( contaminating) the panelboard. The buss is not designed to be painted and should it be painted it is no longer covered by the UL Listing

Go Back to the start of this thread , the issue is " a little paint"............

NOT true ! You need to go back to the start of this thread. The original poster mentioned paint contamination. He never clarified how much paint. He did say A REALTOR made a remark down playing the write up of paint contamination by referring to it as a little paint.

[Jerry Peck]

" @ Jerry Peck - "To anyone who is promoting that ANY contamination is not a reasonable threshold should provide sufficient and adequate supporting documentation to support their contention that the acceptable standard is not "There shall be no ... " and then provide additional supporting documentation which establishes the acceptable level of such contamination or damage is acceptable, and that such documentation has been accepted by NFPA in establishing the acceptable level for the NEC."
Jerry - You are the one who posted this diatribe . You are the one who chose "ANY "as the threshold . You are the one who fabricated " There shall be no..." as the standard .
FYI - One drop is more than "no" and violates Jerry's rules. One drop is also "ANY " and violates Jerry's standards.
Jerry - You cannot have it both ways.If you say one drop is the standard then live by it.
Reasonable people use "affect safe operation " as the standard.

Jim,

The discussion was regarding THE BUS BARS, and ANY contamination on THE BUS BARS is what was being discussed - YOU have tried to, and keep trying to, unsuccessfully change the discussion from what is and has been discussed to something you want to redirect it too so you can espouse your way with things:
- A) You are either trying to apply non-applicable codes to items in the extreme of 'it is not allowed', or
- B) you try to not apply applicable codes to items in the extreme of 'who cares, it does not matter'

In this discussion, the discussion has been regarding bus bars and not a spot of paint in the corner of the cabinet, yet you try to get to the extreme of a spot of paint in the cabinet while the discussion is regarding the bus bars, and, no, contamination of the bus bars (and related exposed live components) is not permitted.

Jack and Jim Port are reasonable people making reasonable statements about the discussion, as are the other reasonable people, and that includes me.

You make unreasonable posts, claims, and diversions in trying to get everyone to either agree with you or disagree with you (I'm not sure which) and you try to take responses to unreasonable extremes.

Remember, YOU brought the term "reasonable" into this discussion, and it is YOU who is making the unreasonable posts and claims.

[Jerry Peck]

(bold is mine)

Does anyone have any pictures of some panel malfunctions due to contamination inside the panel like paint. Something like arcing or melted buss bars would be nice. I see paint contamination a lot but never actually see it causing a problem. I'd like to be able to show someone a picture from what happens the next time a realtor tells me that a little paint is no big deal.



Jack - This is what the original Poster said, "the next time a realtor tells me that a little paint is no big deal."

Jim,

You really should quote someone if you are trying to quote someone and not redirect and misdirect the discussion - the above quote is what the original poster ACTUALLY SAID. I added the bold highlighting to show what the original poster specifically mentioned.

Realism helps, so does accuracy and honesty when quoting someone, not trying to change the discussion to something that you brought up and now feel obligated to defend.

[Lon Henderson]

Note to Brian......this is a great example of a thread that could use a vote button. Thumbs up or thumbs down to a post or poster.

[Jerry Peck]

Note to Brian......this is a great example of a thread that could use a vote button. Thumbs up or thumbs down to a post or poster.

Agreed.

[Mark Reinmiller]

Mark,

You say you are done with this thread, just in case you check back here I have a question for you: do you wave the plastic scraper over the paint and the paint magically floats off the bus bars, or do you have to scrape (abrade) the paint off?

Jerry, I guess I will try to make my point again. I would not have a problem if you just state that in your opinion the NEC does not allow removal of paint from a panel. (And, if that is their position, why don't they just state that.) However, you read the code and then proclaim that the NEC does not allow removal of paint front a panel.

Your statement above is another example of how someone can read a code citation and determine that they are an expert and their opinion is the only possible interpretation of the citation. You have determined that a plastic scraper will abrade a panel. Plastic is a lot softer than metal and I don't think too many people in the real world would think that sliding a piece of plastic across a smooth metal surface would be considered abrading the surface.

BTW, today I was scraping some spackle off of factory painted maple crown molding (using a metal putty knife). I managed to remove the spackle without abrading the paint.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, I guess I will try to make my point again. I would not have a problem if you just state that in your opinion the NEC does not allow removal of paint from a panel. (And, if that is their position, why don't they just state that.) However, you read the code and then proclaim that the NEC does not allow removal of paint front a panel.

Mark,

While you are not as bad about this as Jim A is, you really should quote people with what they say instead of what you think you hear or interpret.

Read my quotes below and try to pay careful attention to the words ... you will see that my words are not the words you think you heard (at least the words you think you heard based on your posts and the post above.

I could give you hints, but, apparently, that stops you from actually having to read and understand what is stated/


... in the case of panel interiors which are contaminated with paint overspray the requirement is that there not be any, and with no permitted way to clean it off that means replacing the panel interior.


Mark,

To date, there are no paint removal products available which are listed and labeled as approved for use to clean paint off buss bars - at least not that anyone I know has found.

There was some stuff advertised for that use, but it was not listed or labeled or approved for that use - just the manufacturer said you could use it for that.


Mark,

What product do you have, or have you seen, which is acceptable for use within the context of this sentence in the code section I posted: "Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues."?


Mark,

The question, though, is what do you use to remove the paint? What meets the restrictions of the code and has been tested and proven to not be just another contaminate itself?

Sure, the paint can be scraped or abraded off - but that is not permitted. The paint can be cleaned off with a cleaner or solvent - but that is not permitted either.

Thus the question is: What would you use to remove the paint which has been tested and listed for that use? It would need to have been tested to show that it does not leave a residue which adversely affects the electrical equipment, then listed and labeled to allow the user to know that it is approved for that use.


BTW, today I was scraping some spackle off of factory painted maple crown molding (using a metal putty knife). I managed to remove the spackle without abrading the paint.

Jim, you scraped without abrading?

scrape verb \ˈskrāp\
: to damage (the surface of something) or hurt (a part of your body) by rubbing something rough or sharp against it or by making it rub against something rough or sharp
: to rub or cause (something) to rub against a hard surface and make a harsh and usually unpleasant sound
: to remove (something) from a surface by rubbing an object or tool against it
Related to SCRAPE
Synonyms
grate, grind, rasp, scratch
Related Words
rub; groan, whine


abrade verb \ə-ˈbrād\
: to damage (something) by rubbing, grinding, or scraping
abrad·edabrad·ing
Full Definition of ABRADE
transitive verb
1
a : to rub or wear away especially by friction : erode
b : to irritate or roughen by rubbing
2
: to wear down in spirit : irritate, weary
Related to ABRADE
Synonyms
chafe, corrade, erode, fray, frazzle, fret, gall, rasp, rub, wear
Related Words
file, gnaw, grate, graze, grind, nibble, sandblast, sandpaper, scour, scrape, scuff, shave; erase, reduce, rub out, wear out, wipe (away); bite, break down, break up, chew, corrode, decompose, disintegrate, dissolve, eat; hone, sharpen, whet

Jim, words are important, I try to use the right words for the right uses as much as possible (and, like everyone else, I make mistakes - have before and will again) - words are important ... a) you should not change the words of others when you are supposedly quoting them; b) you really need to use care in the words you use so you that you do not again say that you did something then effectively state that you did not do it. Hope that helps with future communication issues.

[Garry Sorrells]

Keeping up with this thread is a little frustrating and a recurring frustration from other threads.

First off I would like/love to see pictures of adverse outcomes from various types of panel continuations. Documented pictures demonstrating a cause and effect of contamination in the panel, specifically paint. The problem is I have not seen these yet. Which was the OP.

My personal experience is mostly an issue of salt water and salt air causing problems through rust and deterioration of the panel, which falls into the area of 110.12 "corrosive residues". But not any problems as the result from paint.

Most of the time the paint is showing up after the panel has been wired and breakers are in. Exposed bars that have paint (typically latex) on them can be cleaned off by rubbing with a damp cloth.

My frustration is that the discussion/argument revolves around definitions of words in codes and other written materials. The discussion is pushed one way or the other based on the personal opinion of how to apply a definition of a word or term.

An opinion/statement from a manufacture is a valid source. Even though some may not agree with that opinion/statement. It is the position of the manufacture. Thus is the final answer unless another one from the manufacture can be obtained. Typically the manufacture will offer a statement that is the most protective of their position. But, it is the manufacture's published position. I may not like it and have personal disagreement, but I will have to yield to the official position. The same would be of a Testing Lab or the originator of a Code.

A Square D representative provided a response for what could be used to clean a panel. Yet it seems to have been dismissed. See:
Email esponce to http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/avatars/eric-van-de-ven.gif?dateline=1178811977 (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/members/eric-van-de-ven.html) Eric Van De Ven
(http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/members/eric-van-de-ven.html)www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/electrical-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/2843-paint-contaminated-panel.html?highlight=paint+electrical+panel (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/electrical-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/2843-paint-contaminated-panel.html?highlight=paint+electrical+panel)



" 2007- Rick Snapp
Product Technical Support Group
Square D Company - Lexington Plant"

No one has offered an Official NEC Representative who has provided a definitive answer to the question of what amount, location nor type of paint over spray may be acceptable or not. Personalty I would expect that the answer would be O% is the only acceptable amount as the "OFFICIAL POSITION". Because splitting hairs on the issue would be difficult.

So, why not go to the NEC, Underwriters Lab, Manufacture or other authoritative source to provide a definitive answer, rather than banter back and forth over the issue?

For me I have to yield to any contamination technically creates a issue. Yet in the real practical application/use there is no issue. And still would like to see a source for different types of electrical panel failure from contamination.

[Jerry Peck]

Mark,

While you are not as bad about this as Jim A is, you really should quote people with what they say instead of what you think you hear or interpret.

Read my quotes below and ...
.
.
.

Jim, you scraped without abrading?
.
.
.
Jim, words are important, I try to use the right words for the right uses as much as possible (and, like everyone else, I make mistakes - have before and will again) ...


Jerry - This is really becoming embarrassing. You are so confused that you are replying to the wrong poster .

Jim,

Yes, I did mean "Mark" instead of "Jim", however do you even bother to read what is posted? If so, you would have posted something different.

I said "I make mistakes - have before and will again)" and ... dang if I didn't make another mistake. You are :welcome: for bringing it to my attention.

I also said "Mark, While you are not as bad about this as Jim A ... " so I must have had your name in the back of my mind while replying to Mark as Mark typically makes more reasonable posts than you do, and that post of Mark's was not up to his normal level of reasonableness - I must have thought I was replying to the one who seldom makes reasonable posts. :p :focus:

[Raymond Wand]

"The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the constitution . . ". .— Joseph Story (1833)

The USA constitution has no relationship to what is being discussed. The language above is clarification of the Constitution itself, and not outside interpretation of statutory legislation or intent of legislation for building codes.

[John Kogel]

Raymond, you quoted somebody's post, tsk, tsk.

For Ren and others here, a quote for you. "All ye like sheep who have gone astray ..."

I find the nattering is becoming rather abrasive. :D
Reality check - how many spackled, speckled, or sprayed panels or panel boards have been replaced as a result of a home inspection comment?

[Jerry Peck]

Raymond, you quoted somebody's post, tsk, tsk.

For Ren and others here, a quote for you. "All ye like sheep who have gone astray ..."

I find the nattering is becoming rather abrasive. :D
Reality check - how many spackled, speckled, or sprayed panels or panel boards have been replaced as a result of a home inspection comment?

That probably all depends on where you are.

When I was in South Florida, I suppose the answer started out around 10% and ended up around 90% of the ones reported.

That is because it became an issue, we talked to many electrical inspectors and Chief Electrical Inspectors - they could not come up with a definitive "this much is okay" after reviewing the limitations stated in the NEC, thus, when home inspectors would get questioned on writing the panels up, the home inspectors would respond with "Check with (name) Chief Electrical Inspector, he said to have you guys call him.", the result was that the electrical contractor would call the Chief Electrical Inspector of (town/city) who would basically state that unless the electrical contractor could provide documentation from the manufacturer that the contamination *was not* a hazard - replace the interior, and if the panel is old, out dated, and the interior is not available then replace the panel.

Notice that the Chief Electrical Inspector never said to "replace the panel" because of the contamination, only that if the manufacturer did not accept the contamination then he would not accept the contamination either.

Within about a 1-2 year period all panel in new construction miraculously started being protected by the electrical contractor cutting out the cover of the box the panel came in and using it to protect the interior of the panel.

A few electrical contractor said they were not going to do that, the Chief Code Compliance Officer, Electrical of the county (he was over all the Chief Electrical Inspectors) made a few electrical contractors replace the panel interiors on new construction, he was not putting up with the crap the electrical contractors were doing - when that happened ... *ALL* electrical contractors made sure to protect their panels.

Problem solved. :cool:

All it takes is making friends with the code people in the various AHJ and finding one that cares ... once it starts in the area, the others will follow, even if the AHJ does not follow, the contractors working in the different AHJ find it easier to be consistent across all AHJ rather than try to remember what they can get away with in which AHJ.

I don't know what it is now as most of us that started it are retired, and the Chief Code Compliance Officer, Electrical retired for heath reasons, he passed away last year - he was too young, too bright, and too smart to good to go, but, as the song says "Only the Good die young." Billy Joel - Only The Good Die Young (HQ with lyrics) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlEvh-DZ-kE&feature=kp)

- - - Updated - - -


Raymond, you quoted somebody's post, tsk, tsk.

For Ren and others here, a quote for you. "All ye like sheep who have gone astray ..."

I find the nattering is becoming rather abrasive. :D
Reality check - how many spackled, speckled, or sprayed panels or panel boards have been replaced as a result of a home inspection comment?

That probably all depends on where you are.

When I was in South Florida, I suppose the answer started out around 10% and ended up around 90% of the ones reported.

That is because it became an issue, we talked to many electrical inspectors and Chief Electrical Inspectors - they could not come up with a definitive "this much is okay" after reviewing the limitations stated in the NEC, thus, when home inspectors would get questioned on writing the panels up, the home inspectors would respond with "Check with (name) Chief Electrical Inspector, he said to have you guys call him.", the result was that the electrical contractor would call the Chief Electrical Inspector of (town/city) who would basically state that unless the electrical contractor could provide documentation from the manufacturer that the contamination *was not* a hazard - replace the interior, and if the panel is old, out dated, and the interior is not available then replace the panel.

Notice that the Chief Electrical Inspector never said to "replace the panel" because of the contamination, only that if the manufacturer did not accept the contamination then he would not accept the contamination either.

Within about a 1-2 year period all panel in new construction miraculously started being protected by the electrical contractor cutting out the cover of the box the panel came in and using it to protect the interior of the panel.

A few electrical contractor said they were not going to do that, the Chief Code Compliance Officer, Electrical of the county (he was over all the Chief Electrical Inspectors) made a few electrical contractors replace the panel interiors on new construction, he was not putting up with the crap the electrical contractors were doing - when that happened ... *ALL* electrical contractors made sure to protect their panels.

Problem solved. :cool:

All it takes is making friends with the code people in the various AHJ and finding one that cares ... once it starts in the area, the others will follow, even if the AHJ does not follow, the contractors working in the different AHJ find it easier to be consistent across all AHJ rather than try to remember what they can get away with in which AHJ.

I don't know what it is now as most of us that started it are retired, and the Chief Code Compliance Officer, Electrical retired for heath reasons, he passed away last year - he was too young, too bright, and too smart to good to go, but, as the song says "Only the Good die young." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlEvh-DZ-kE&feature=kp

[Garry Sorrells]

:clap2:Nice story, tough anecdotal. Anything in writing???:frusty:

:focus: How about pictures of damage resulting from contamination???????

[Garry Sorrells]

Ren,
Not what you were looking for concerning paint and not to hard to find in the field.
The breakers were not the final reason for replacement but a leg in the meter box itself.
The breakers were working right up to replacement.
10 years old.
The box was exposed to salt air and water. Conditions could not get much worse.

[Mark Reinmiller]

I could give you hints, but, apparently, that stops you from actually having to read and understand what is stated/



Jerry,
Not many people have the time to read every word you post. Your first quote about says it all. You are claiming that there is not know way to clean a panel so therefore it must be replaced. That is your opinion-not fact.

Based on your your interpretation of the code, I suppose that if the circuit breaker is installed and then removed, that slot should be abandoned because surely the act of installing the circuit breaker abraded the buss and therefore that slot (or maybe the whole panel) is no good-it is a clear violation of the NEC.

Why not just say that there is paint in the panel. The paint should be removed if possible or the panel should be replaced. Implying that the NEC says you cannot clean paint is your interpretation of the NEC.

Regarding some who have quoted the older post from a manufacturer regarding what is acceptable to clean a panel, from a liability standpoint, it is in their best interest to state that only a clean cloth (or whatever the wording) is allowable. What manufacturer would want to go on record saying you can clean paint, etc. And since they sell panels, why not call for replacement. I do not view their comments as anything other than CYA.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,
Not many people have the time to read every word you post.

Mark,

I now see where the problem lies ... by admission you do not read the entire post ... by past history, you respond to the post anyway - thinking you know what is in the post ... the post you which said you did not read in its entirety.

That pretty much sums up where the communication problem is.

[ren ramsey]

WOW sorry I asked. This has really degenerated into a mud slinging contest. When I get it slung at me I take offense especially when I did nothing to deserve it and there needs to be a delete button where I as the OP could just delete the whole thread. For the record, the quote " a little bit of paint" was a quote from a realtor and not mine. Also Nowhere did I ask for pictures of panel malfunctions to pass off as malfunctions due to paint or other contamination malfunctions. That would be unprofessional but I did not ask for that. I specifically asked for pictures of malfunctions due to paint. I am quite aware the only way to determine that is to send the panel back to the manufacture or perhaps have some test pictures from NEC. I thought that with the PROFESSIONAL experiences represented on this forum that maybe someone may have that in their archive where they knew the malfunction was caused by the contaminant for sure. For those who have contributed something positive thanks.

[Chris Weekly]

Ren - Here is a post about the painting of interior of electrical panels.
This was an older 18 unit apartment building, with newer electrical panels installed at each of the units.
Of the 18, only 3 panels did not have paint on the interior. The other 15 panels had to be replaced.
The paint was 'a little...' to 'a lot..' and wires were burnt or scorched at most of these painted panels.

Here is the link --- http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/electrical-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/32229-how-much-paint-too-much.html

How much is too much? I say even 'a little...' is too much. If the various inspectors on this site wish to take on the responsibility of not making a big issue - that is their prerogative.
For newer inspectors who are trying to learn the business....you may not want to take that risk until you have built up your bank account.
Chris

[Jim Port]

Looking at the picture in the post above concerning the apartment building I would venture to say that most of the damage was done by loose connections, not overspray.

The paint on the bus stabs would be an issue.

[jack davenport]

WOW sorry I asked. This has really degenerated into a mud slinging contest. When I get it slung at me I take offense especially when I did nothing to deserve it and there needs to be a delete button where I as the OP could just delete the whole thread. For the record, the quote " a little bit of paint" was a quote from a realtor and not mine. Also Nowhere did I ask for pictures of panel malfunctions to pass off as malfunctions due to paint or other contamination malfunctions. That would be unprofessional but I did not ask for that. I specifically asked for pictures of malfunctions due to paint. I am quite aware the only way to determine that is to send the panel back to the manufacture or perhaps have some test pictures from NEC. I thought that with the PROFESSIONAL experiences represented on this forum that maybe someone may have that in their archive where they knew the malfunction was caused by the contaminant for sure. For those who have contributed something positive thanks.


Thats the joy of this place ! When one posts they are never really quite sure when they are shaking the hornets nest !:laugh:

[John Williams]

Abrasives are forbidden, I got that, to me an abrasive is sandpaper or similar, not a plastic scraper.

[Jerry Peck]

I was using my belt sander, with a 50 grit belt on it, and it occurred to me that the 50 grit abrasive was not actually abrading away the wood ... no sir ... each piece of grit was simply scraping off a little bit of wood with each careful pass - I contemplated using some rubbing compound and polishing compound on my car, then thought - Whoa, wait a minute there, those things contain abrasives in them ... oh, wait, those pastes only scrape off micro small particles ... they don't abrade things either.

Cool! New terminology for my granddaughter - Would you please hand that scraper to me? As she looks puzzled and looks around for a scraper ...

Anyone ever scratch a piece of glass with a piece of plastic? Nope, will never happen as plastic can't damage things harder than it is.

I've also got a great investment deal for you too - I have advance knowledge that the Brooklyn Bridge is going to be replaced and I will be getting the scrap metal contract. I'll sell you the scrap metal for 1/4 the wholesale scrapyard price ... any takers? :)

[Mark Reinmiller]

Mark,

I now see where the problem lies ... by admission you do not read the entire post ... by past history, you respond to the post anyway - thinking you know what is in the post ... the post you which said you did not read in its entirety.

That pretty much sums up where the communication problem is.

I read enough of your posts on this subject to know what you originally stated and repeated numerous times. I don't have time to read run-on posts that repeat the same thing over and over.

Instead of telling me I don't understand, just answer my question as to why installing a breaker does not abrade the buss.

[Chris Weekly]

Looking at the picture in the post above concerning the apartment building I would venture to say that most of the damage was done by loose connections, not overspray.

The paint on the bus stabs would be an issue.

The 3 panels that weren't oversprayed did not have scorched wiring issues --some conicidence, huh? Only the 15 panels that had overspray (according to you) also had loose wiring connections. So If they had not done the overspray then the wires would have been properly tightened.....I guess????
Do they just not tighten wires on panels with overspray?.....like the damage is already done - why waste out time tightening wires. It will scorch anyway.
MORAL IS....don't overspray and your wires will be tightened!

[Garry Sorrells]

WOW sorry I asked. ........


Don't be sorry, be happy! :o I thought your request was good. You would think that with the number of members here might have more pictures. Numbers and probability. We all know that there is a small number of panels with paint that we see which show an actual problem that may be attributable to the paint. I think that the reason we do not see problems is that the panels that have problems are being replaced before we get there.

I don't think that many if any electricians take pictures of their work. Will have to ask around.


Like you I wish things would not so sophomoric at times, but it is a mater of egos clashing.:boink:

[bob smit]

Doubt you will find any pics showing resulting damage do to paint as it will almost never cause any.
Yet, there is always that .09% chance.
The code does have to include foreign material as a violation so that AHJs' like myself can write it when required.
A bit of overspray on/in the enclosure itself will not cause any issues. However, any paint at all on the buss, conductors, terminations etc., may cause an issue to develope.

If the paint is just on "The Paint", then just leave the paint on the paint and move on to matters that matter! A little common sense in inspecting is needed here.

[Jerry Peck]

If the paint is just on "The Paint", then just leave the paint on the paint and move on to matters that matter! A little common sense in inspecting is needed here.


I was going to stay out of this, but, I feel that following the words as written versus the practical aspect are two different issues. I do not see something like latex paint over spray on the panel enclosure as an issue. Now paint on the bus is different as it is a functional and conductive part.


I am in the same camp as Jim Port. Some paint on the panel enclosure - No issue
Paint on the cover - as long as the label(s) are not covered No issue
Paint on the energized bus - A problem - I would default to the manufactures recommendation on a remedy.


Jack, I believe that puts you with almost all the rest of us on this issue.

I suspect that is the way most of us look at it.

The discussion has been about the paint on the bus bars, which, as agreed to by those above, is a different issue than paint on the enclosure, or "paint on the paint" as Bob Smit called it.

That said (gosh, dare I post this as it might cause some unreasonable types to launch off on another tangent?) "the paint" on the enclosure (the cabinet) has been tested with the panelboard, other paint has not. From prior discussions with UL on other paint on things which should not be painted, UL brought up that no paint would be allowed as they do not know what kind of paint it is, it's arc tracking properties, and other things that most of us do not consider but that UL does in their testing of the electrical equipment.

No one needs to panic, I am just posting that for general knowledge.

[Garry Sorrells]

How much paint and where is the issue with many HIs as well as Electricians. Even they will vary in position on cleaning and amount of paint. There is even difference as to replacing the entire panel as apposed to replacing interior parts.

Take a look at the Electrical Talk Forum:
Paint in the Panel - Electrician Talk - Professional Electrical Contractors Forum (http://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/paint-panel-51253/)

Overspray again... - Electrician Talk - Professional Electrical Contractors Forum (http://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/overspray-again-49269/)

[Rolland Pruner]

No Picture? Anyhow the panels are suppose to be CLEAN this also means no paint/drywall spray etc also, They used to recommend changing the panel if panel is contaminated (older NEC) Now they can clean them with a special cleaner!! an qualified Electrical contractor can advise on this.

- - - Updated - - -

No Picture? Anyhow the panels are suppose to be CLEAN this also means no paint/drywall spray etc also, They used to recommend changing the panel if panel is contaminated (older NEC) Now they can clean them with a special cleaner!! an qualified Electrical contractor can advise on this.

- - - Updated - - -

No Picture? Anyhow the panels are suppose to be CLEAN this also means no paint/drywall spray etc also, They used to recommend changing the panel if panel is contaminated (older NEC) Now they can clean them with a special cleaner!! an qualified Electrical contractor can advise on this.

- - - Updated - - -

No Picture? Anyhow the panels are suppose to be CLEAN this also means no paint/drywall spray etc also, They used to recommend changing the panel if panel is contaminated (older NEC) Now they can clean them with a special cleaner!! an qualified Electrical contractor can advise on this.

- - - Updated - - -

No Picture? Anyhow the panels are suppose to be CLEAN this also means no paint/drywall spray etc also, They used to recommend changing the panel if panel is contaminated (older NEC) Now they can clean them with a special cleaner!! an qualified Electrical contractor can advise on this.

- - - Updated - - -

No Picture? Anyhow the panels are suppose to be CLEAN this also means no paint/drywall spray etc also, They used to recommend changing the panel if panel is contaminated (older NEC) Now they can clean them with a special cleaner!! an qualified Electrical contractor can advise on this.

- - - Updated - - -

No Picture? Anyhow the panels are suppose to be CLEAN this also means no paint/drywall spray etc also, They used to recommend changing the panel if panel is contaminated (older NEC) Now they can clean them with a special cleaner!! an qualified Electrical contractor can advise on this.

- - - Updated - - -

No Picture? Anyhow the panels are suppose to be CLEAN this also means no paint/drywall spray etc also, They used to recommend changing the panel if panel is contaminated (older NEC) Now they can clean them with a special cleaner!! an qualified Electrical contractor can advise on this.

- - - Updated - - -

No Picture? Anyhow the panels are suppose to be CLEAN this also means no paint/drywall spray etc also, They used to recommend changing the panel if panel is contaminated (older NEC) Now they can clean them with a special cleaner!! an qualified Electrical contractor can advise on this.

[Billy Stephens]

Wow Roland !!

Once or twice ( maybe your enter button is on Machine Gun ) per reply please.:)

[Jerry Peck]

That said (gosh, dare I post this as it might cause some unreasonable types to launch off on another tangent?) ...


Wow Jerry - Seems that you have gone full circle on this one. Seems that you just argue for the sake of arguing.

I do believe I was spot on with what I said ... along comes an unreasonable type and launches off again ... guess the unreasonable type doth not read, or doth not comprehend what is read, in the in original post and what the discussion was about ... it was nice, though, with that ... suspension ... of time from the unreasonable type's posts.