Thread: Ungrounded 3 prong plugs

Was cruising around the internet and viewed another inspectors sample report on his web site. In it he states that to fix an ungrounded 3 prong plug is "as simple as filling the ground slot with epoxy". Is this a safe repair? would it be something you would be recommending to clients. Does not seem safe to me.

Similar Threads:

• GFCI's for two-prong outlets
• old 3 prong dryer receptacle to new 3 prong dryer receptacle
• Gray 2 prong to 3 prong adapters
• GFCI outlers for ungrounded circuits
• 3 prone dryer plugs

I think where he's going with that would be basically preventing a 3-prong plug from being plugged in which, in theory, is a good idea. In practice through his advice is not endorsed or approved by anyone and is poor at best.

My advice is to replace with the original two prong type or GFI protect, keeping in mind GFI protecting has limitations due to the absence of an equipment ground.

"as simple as filling the ground slot with epoxy"

Wow-- definitely not an approved "repair" that I am aware of.

Would you mind sending me a PM with a link so I can read the rest of his report?

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore

Wow-- definitely not an approved "repair" that I am aware of.

Would you mind sending me a PM with a link so I can read the rest of his report?

Here it is... I just Googled the phrase and I came up with it.

http://thehomeinspectionwebsite.com/...ple_report.doc

I had that canned phrase in one of my report software packages in the past. While not an approved repair, when you think about it it is almost exactly what you would have with the original 2 prong outlet, a piece of non-conductive plastic blocking the ability to plug in a grounded cord.

That's a non-starter if you ask me. It's not even close to being an approved repair, so why even suggest it?
I have suggested replacing ungrounded 3-prongs with new 2-prongs, assuming they are ungrounded because it's still a 2 wire system, IF the local code authority approves, but some people (JP) have argued here in the past that once the 3-prong is in place, you can't go back.

Let me ask you this. If you inspected a house and found the ground plug stuffed with epoxy, what would you recommend? It does sound like an easy fix, but would you actually recommend it? In writing?

Originally Posted by David O'Keefe

Let me ask you this. If you inspected a house and found the ground plug stuffed with epoxy, what would you recommend? It does sound like an easy fix, but would you actually recommend it? In writing?

I'd definitely recommend replacing it. Why not? It's wrong.

An easy way to fix a leak on a slate roof is too slather it with tar but that doesn't make it right.

I highly doubt you could find any manufacturer of electrical outlets that would approve of filling the ground prong hole on a receptacle with epoxy.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

I had that canned phrase in one of my report software packages in the past. While not an approved repair, when you think about it it is almost exactly what you would have with the original 2 prong outlet, a piece of non-conductive plastic blocking the ability to plug in a grounded cord.

A little clarification, "I" never recommend that, just giving a little insight on the possible origin of the statement. Of course most of the canned verbiage originated with an inspector somewhere.

Someone should send him an e-mail and explain why he should remove that from his report.

I thought about doing it, but ... my e-mail may make him crap his pants ...

Filling the prong hole is an alteration to the devise. Which would go against manufacture design.

Repair would imply correcting, returning to the original state or function of something.
(maybe not worded right but idea there)

Can not believe some one would actually suggest that as a correction/alteration unless there is a manufacture that has stated that they (manf) recommends/directs doing such an alteration to a product.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Someone should send him an e-mail and explain why he should remove that from his report.

I thought about doing it, but ... my e-mail may make him crap his pants ...

Ahh heck Jerry. I want to see your position is on this.
Post what your email would say here.

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Ahh heck Jerry. I want to see your position is on this.
Post what your email would say here.

I'm guessing the phrase "surviving spouse" figures in there somewhere.

From site/link


http://thehomeinspectionwebsite.com/...ple_report.doc

Electrical observations

recommendations / observations

þ Ungrounded 3-prong outlets ( I.E. near kitchen stove) should be improved. This can be as simple as filling the ground slot with epoxy. Alternatively, a grounded cable could be strung to this outlet, or a separate ground wire could be connected. Some electrical codes allow the installation of a ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) type outlet where grounding is not provided.

Thanks Matt.

The entire electrical page on this report is hard to understand.

I use the same software (much earlier version) and the "epoxy" thing was one of the canned comments.

I removed it.

This would be the same as saying "the trap under the kitchen sink leaks, the repair can be as simple as wrapping the pipe with electrical tape"

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore

Thanks Matt.

No problem.... just sitting here waiting for the phone to ring

No problem.... just sitting here waiting for the phone to ring


Try one of my sugestions?

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Ahh heck Jerry. I want to see your position is on this.
Post what your email would say here.

Originally Posted by John Arnold

I'm guessing the phrase "surviving spouse" figures in there somewhere.

I have been retained by the attorney of the surviving spouse of a previous client of yours as a result of you telling your previous client that the grounding-type receptacles on ungrounded circuits did not require GFCI protection or the installation of a ground, that there was a simple repair.

You stated that this repair, and these are your words, " ... can be as simple as filling the ground slot with epoxy.", which resulted in the demise of your previous client. The surviving spouse and heirs are seeking ...

Something nice and friendly and all ...

The NEC allows an ungrounded two prong receptacle to be replaced with an ungrounded three prong receptacle if the the receptacle has GFCI protection and is labeled with a warning- GFCI protected. No equipment ground.

Filling the ground slot with epoxy would void the listing of the receptacle.

I know of no manufacture that allows this so called repair. And I do not believe that it has a UL rating any longer if this is done. Hard to believe anyone would put this in there report. The only way that I know of to correct this is to run a ground wire back to the panel from all outlets or to install a GFCI in each circuit and mark the outlets as such. Or replace the grounded outlets with the correct outlets. There are several things about this persons report I do not like. To say that the roof is fair, then say that it is snow covered not a good idea either. Shoud say that the roof is snow covered and unabel to view the condition of the roof. His reporting is going to end him in court.
Bruce

When I replaced all the devices in my home w/decora-style, needed a few ungrounded outlets for the old part of the house. Didn't feel like spending anymore time trying to hunt them down so I epoxied em.

Worked great, meets the intent of the code, and no harm done.
And YES, I have instructed a HO to do just that on an inspection, and yes, I approved them upon return.
You fellas would do yourself and others justice to get real and get practical.

There are a lot of epoxies on the market. Who knows which one might be used to fill the ground lead. Would they be conductive or flammable before fully curing? Is this done while the outlet is "hot," or when the outlet is de-energized? Could the epoxy come loose or fall out at some point? Personally, I would not want the liability of recommending such a "fix." If I came across this in the field, I would have to flag it. There are sufficient code approved methods of dealing with the issue to allow this type of alteration, in my opinion. Certainly not "workmanlike."

Originally Posted by bob smit

When I replaced all the devices in my home w/decora-style, needed a few ungrounded outlets for the old part of the house. Didn't feel like spending anymore time trying to hunt them down so I epoxied em.

Worked great, meets the intent of the code, and no harm done.
And YES, I have instructed a HO to do just that on an inspection, and yes, I approved them upon return.
You fellas would do yourself and others justice to get real and get practical.

Bob,
The point is not about getting real or getting practical. The point is about telling someone to do something that goes against code, manufacturers specifications for alteration of an item and really about being professional. Not to mention the, no mater how unlikely being a problem, liability of specificaly directing the procedure. Over the years I have made about every modification possible to just about every thing that is possible to alter. I have on a consistent basis removed the ground on the plug on my extension cord so that I didn't have to use an adapter on the job site. I work on active outlets and electric lines. I have had owners watch me in disbelief as I change out a switch or rewire something. I always tell them never to do attempt working with live electric lines. I am willing to take the risks but I am not willing to take on the risks and liability of others. I know my capabilities, limitations and liability exposure.

I guess it may be age or just the experience of seeing how stupid some people are or just how litigious society has become. My advice/direction is what should be done (correctly), but not how you may be able to work around something against the specifications of design.

I can not really think of what might happen by plugging the ground with epoxy. I can imagine how the law suite would go against me.

I cannot speak as a H.I. only as an AHJ.
As the AHJ I may; 'waive specific requirements...or permit alternate methods....when equivalent objectives can be achieved.'

As a HI, I can only assume I would not make issue with this simple fix as long as my tester is unable to penetrate what was once a grounding hole.
Similar, I have accepted 4sq blank plates to close off other openings.
Screwing a cover shut which was once a panel board, now a J-box.
Again, be practical.

Originally Posted by bob smit

I cannot speak as a H.I. only as an AHJ.
As the AHJ I may; 'waive specific requirements...or permit alternate methods....when equivalent objectives can be achieved.'

As a HI, I can only assume I would not make issue with this simple fix as long as my tester is unable to penetrate what was once a grounding hole.
Similar, I have accepted 4sq blank plates to close off other openings.
Screwing a cover shut which was once a panel board, now a J-box.
Again, be practical.

Do you have any liability working as an AHJ approving this method?

Originally Posted by bob smit

I cannot speak as a H.I. only as an AHJ.
As the AHJ I may; 'waive specific requirements...or permit alternate methods....when equivalent objectives can be achieved.'

As a HI, I can only assume I would not make issue with this simple fix as long as my tester is unable to penetrate what was once a grounding hole.
Similar, I have accepted 4sq blank plates to close off other openings.
Screwing a cover shut which was once a panel board, now a J-box.
Again, be practical.

Would you, as a AHJ, HI, Contractor or any person acting in a professional capacity tell someone to epoxy in the plug?

The argument in boths directions is clear. An AHJ has no personal liability and an HI does. It's as simple as that. Having your head on the chopping block changes the way we all think and do our jobs. It's funny to think how much differently we could all do our jobs if we weren't always afraid of someone suing us.

I'm not saying the AHJ or HI are right or wrong.... it's just two people with naturally different views.

Originally Posted by bob smit

When I replaced all the devices in my home w/decora-style, needed a few ungrounded outlets for the old part of the house. Didn't feel like spending anymore time trying to hunt them down so I epoxied em.

Worked great, meets the intent of the code, and no harm done.
And YES, I have instructed a HO to do just that on an inspection, and yes, I approved them upon return.
You fellas would do yourself and others justice to get real and get practical.

Bob,

Let me get this straight:
1) You are an electrical inspector, right?
2) You felt it was more cost and time effective to epoxy the holes up than to replace with GFCI decora receptacles?
3) You suggested to a home owner that they do that?
4) You then approved that?

I think it is YOU who needs to get practical and stop watching so much House and Garden TV or Homes on Homes and start paying attention to the little things in your inspections ... little things like: life; safety; accepting what is listed and NOT accepting what is no longer listed; I could go on and on, but there is no need, not based on what you posted.

Originally Posted by bob smit

I cannot speak as a H.I. only as an AHJ.
As the AHJ I may; 'waive specific requirements...or permit alternate methods....when equivalent objectives can be achieved.'

As a HI, I can only assume I would not make issue with this simple fix as long as my tester is unable to penetrate what was once a grounding hole.
Similar, I have accepted 4sq blank plates to close off other openings.
Screwing a cover shut which was once a panel board, now a J-box.
Again, be practical.

I did not think this good when I first read it. I still would never tell one of my client to do something like this. The person that tells someone that this is a good repair needs to look closer.
I contacted a Licensed Master Electrician about this and his comment was this is crazy. Should not be done. Also called Hubbell to see what they had to say. As per them you can not alter the design or construction of any electrical device. And my lawyer says when you tell someone to alter such, you become liable.
If and when I see this done I will write it up as an improper repair.
Bruce

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

The argument in boths directions is clear. An AHJ has no personal liability and an HI does. It's as simple as that. Having your head on the chopping block changes the way we all think and do our jobs. It's funny to think how much differently we could all do our jobs if we weren't always afraid of someone suing us.

I'm not saying the AHJ or HI are right or wrong.... it's just two people with naturally different views.

"An AHJ has no personal liability"

To the contrary, an AHJ inspector does have personal liability. Think of it as a corporate veil which is just a lot harder to pierce.

If the AHJ inspector (or even the Building Official) steps outside the scope of their work (which is to enforce the codes and interpret the codes when necessary), and when the inspector steps outside that scope they become personally liable for their actions and are no longer under the umbrella of protection provided by the AHJ.

To force that issue, someone would need to complain, and it is highly unlikely that the person he told to epoxy up the ground hole will complain ... until ... something dreadful happens.

At that time, the compliant (which is now a lawsuit) against the inspector pierces through the layer of protection and the inspector is personally liable, and the AHJ, and the political subdivision the AHJ works for (city/county/state) will likely advise the inspector that the city/county/state attorney WILL NOT be defending them, that they are on their own.

Likely to happen? Nope.

Can it happen? Yes.

Has it happened before? Yep.

That would be an adulteration of the equipment, a use inconsistant and contrary to its listing, listing standard/labeling and manufacturer's instructions.

Contrary to Bob Smit's claims, that, in and of itself would be a violation of the NEC (my favorite section in chapter one, I know EC and WC Jerry's are fond of it to). The Justification excuse is inexcuseable (swapped out to decora style and didn't want to hunt for an ungrounded version - there is none) and bogus. Put a label on it (GFCI Protected, No Equipment Ground) and protect it upstream with a GFCI, or swap it out with a GFCI receptacle with a label (No Equipment Ground) that fits a decora face plate - UGH! how simple is that? Can't miss 'em, they're available for sale whereever you purchased the rest of your decora style devices.

The Standard tolerance for a cord cap abutting a receptacle face is tight. Should there be metalic box, conduit, intermediate equipment bonding anywhere in the electrically continuous system - the idea is on the level of moronic. Even painting a receptacle face is a major NO-NO (and yes EC Jerry and I have butted virtual heads on this issue in the past - but the UL documentation and references provided previously support my possition).
Curing process is a chemical one with the resins. Not all epoxy is equal, nor does it always cure bubble free. You'd have to overfill to avoid a cured depression, then what, sand the face of the receptacle! Yeah, get real Bob Smit! Next you'll be saying its okay to use bailing wire for gec.

With a vintage installation, with many generations of changes in wiring practices (the only type installation where such would be an issue - otherwise there is a PROBLEM which needs to be identified & corrected) this "idea" is even more dangerous. "Floating grounds" were COMMON. We don't allow the practice anymore. Older installations may have had insufficient bonding/ability to safely carry fault. Save vintage often used 3-wire bare and case grounding for 240V circuits.

Without a Field Evaluation (mighty expensive, and not likely to pass), who ever instructed to do this, and/or would do this, would be "on their own" regarding liability.

BTW the entirety of the site is repleat with neglect and unfinished with multiple broken links, and doesn't fully function; panders to realtors but claims to be ASHI, mostly geared towards promotion of radio show. Of his two blog posts, now nearly 2 years old - both are spammed in the comment area, some many months old. The HI in question has apparently recently joined another website (nacho) and posted on an identical thread claiming it was just a quick point and click example of what a report might look like, and not specific and wasn't reviewed...kind of speaks volumes about his careful attention to detail he promotes about himself, doesn't it? Borrowed (poorly) info for the potential client - pretty useless site.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Has it happened before? Yep.

Enquring minds want to know.... can you site a source?

We are all missing the point, The report did not state that the "epoxy should be installed by a qualified epoxitrition."
(sorry I could not resist) LOL

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

Enquring minds want to know.... can you site a source?

I know of several in South Florida, and the (former) Building Official in Pembroke Pines was one. Too many 'funny' things were being allowed.

I am not sure that his case ever made it 'to court' but I do know he lost his Building Officials license and his inspectors licenses over it - first by Broward County (in Broward County the County certifies all the building departments and the inspectors who work in Broward County for the County and for each City, this is in addition to the inspectors being licensed and certified through the state of Florida). This one was back before I moved from South Florida, so it was likely around 2003-2004.

Earlier this month I sat in on a meeting of the BCAIB (Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board) in which several inspectors (and three Building Officials) were brought before the Board for 'errors in judgment' (being nice in what I am calling it) and who had their licenses revoked by the state. One of the Building Officials settled out-of-court with the person who filed the action (legal action) and the compliant (compliant to the Board) and tried to voluntarily surrender his Building Officials and Inspectors licenses as he retired from the city (a city near me) in exchange for not having his licenses revoked (which really, really, looks bad on one's resume) - the Board denied him the opportunity to voluntarily surrender his licenses and revoked all of his licenses.

Seems he had made some serious plan review errors, and then some serious inspection errors (based on those previous plan review errors and not paying attention during the inspection) - was not a pretty story, and the ending was not pretty either ... ending with all of his licenses revoked.

Another Building Official also made some serious 'errors in judgment' and ended up with all of his licenses revoked too. To my knowledge, he has not been sued for his 'errors in judgment' (at least not yet).

The other Building official and inspectors were likewise punished for their 'sins' ...

In all of the above cases, the inspectors/building officials were on their own dime, they were no longer under the cloak of their AHJ's protection.

H. G. is (I believe) referring to this for support when saying that painting THE FACE of receptacle outlets and cover plates is not allowed:
- 110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
- - (B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

The above does not disallow it, and the following allows it by not disallowing it either: (bold and underlining are mine)
- 110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work.
Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.
- - - FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in ANSI/NECA 1-2006, Standard Practices for Good Workmanship in Electrical Contracting, 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.

The receptacle outlets are not painted on the "internal parts". Whenever the paint is that thick and/or goes INTO the slots of the receptacle outlet, then, yes, I agree that the paint is not allowed to be there.

I suppose that H. G. would, therefore, use that same argument and state that the EXTERIOR of panels are not allowed to be painted either, even though they are already painted. That would reject almost every single exterior service equipment/panel enclosure I have seen.

If my stance seems that bad, then call me a push over ... although I seriously doubt that you would find ANY contractor who would agree with that statement ...

No Peck, you assume poorly, and is of course only despositive of your being an ass.

We've gone around on this before. Unfortunate you can't properly use a search function, oh, that's right you don't know which keywords to use.

I can tell you with absolute certainty, that a home insurance underwriter WILL disclaim the resulting electrical fire. It has happened many, many times all over the country.

Unfortunate that your education was so limited, and that you have absolutely no conceptual understanding of NEMA or UL Standards.

But enough about you.

Dumping epoxy into the grounding pin/blade receptacle is a stupid idea. So is painting the face of a receptacle. Both will be grounds to void your insurance coverage.

Sugesting another do either, opens your wallet. Enough said.

I can tell you with absolute certainty, that a home insurance underwriter WILL disclaim the resulting electrical fire. It has happened many, many times all over the country.

So is painting the face of a receptacle. Both will be grounds to void your insurance coverage.


Can you provide us with reliable documentation to support that.

Thank you

H. G.,

I see you STILL cannot (have not yet learned how to?) communicate without your derogatory language, thus one can only surmise that is the limits of your knowledge.

Let's see, I am trying to recall how often you must have used the "Report" button to report, or to threat to report, posts which were not as derogatory as yours ... hmmm ... quite a few would be correct as I recall.

Watson, I STILL say that you COULD Be a great source of information here ... but your CONTINUE to refuse to be such. Sigh ... what a waste.

I STILL say that you COULD Be a great source of information here

Jerry
Not everyone, even those with experance and knowledge, have the ability or desire to teach (help) others.
It's like the differance between Dr. Phil and Jerry Springer.


thus one can only surmise that is the limits of your knowledge

Thats correct, he just does not know how.