Can a Type1 Enclosure subpanel be installed on the exterior?

2

2Htm

Member
Location
California
Occupation
Inspector
Hello to All,
Is it safe and/or an acceptable installation method, in California, to install a Type1 Enclosure subpanel on the exterior directly behind an access metal door/cover that appears to protect against the rain?

The subpanel is installed approximately one inch behind the stucco cladding. The metal access/cover door, equipped with hinges, is subject to all weather elements, no overhead/no eaves, and is lifted upward to allow access to the subpanel's door to open 90 degrees.

Thank you!
 
If it is protected from the weather I don't see any legit issue about it but you might get into some legalistic argument depending on exactly what the code says.
 
If the access door when closed makes the subpanel location equivalent to an indoor location in terms of rain protection I think it's fine. Hopefully the subpanel isn't set back too much that the framing around it constitutes a working space violation.
 
NEMA 1 only shows up on the "indoor use" part of Table 110.18. I would not see this installation as being indoor.
 
I appreciate your replies!

The subpanel appears to have been subject to prior modification(s) and the installation of multiple Double-Pole circuit breakers!

For some reason there is no way to share an image, here is a link:

SubPanel4.jpg

drive.google.com drive.google.com

SubPanel 2.jpg

drive.google.com drive.google.com
 
2Htm said:
I appreciate your replies!

The subpanel appears to have been subject to prior modification(s) and the installation of multiple Double-Pole circuit breakers!

For some reason there is no way to share an image, here is a link:

SubPanel4.jpg

drive.google.com drive.google.com

SubPanel 2.jpg

drive.google.com drive.google.com
Click to expand...
Strikes me as very borderline. Also it appears the gas meter is likely in the working space and/or likely too close for the mechanical code.
 
You can put Romex inside an exterior wall. It is not allowed "outside". That suggests maybe being inside an exterior wall is "inside".

Is there a definition of inside and outside in the code?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
NEMA 1 only shows up on the "indoor use" part of Table 110.18. I would not see this installation as being indoor.
Click to expand...
Yet it was installed "not outdoors" but with provisions to gain access from outdoors.

If there is anything to argue I'd say maybe required working clearances?

Some have brought up similar questions in the past with a totally interior panelboard but with an additional access door finishing it's appearance.
 
Added Question - Is it safe to assume that the various brands, of the installed Double-Pole circuit breakers, have been modified to fit for installation? without pulling the breakers :unsure:
SubPanel7.jpgSubPanel6.jpg
 
Prior to Siemens purchase of Murray, they were labeled to allow the installation of Bryant BR, & ITE EQP, & EQT, breakers, The 3R door kit was common on mobile homes, since they are masters of cheap.
 
If Indoor equipment cannot be installed in Outdoor rated enclosures, we could not have Outdoor control panels.
 
jim dungar said:
If Indoor equipment cannot be installed in Outdoor rated enclosures, we could not have Outdoor control panels.
Click to expand...
Good point. I have placed indoor load centers inside of 4/12/13/13X enclosures a time or two.

You might be able to get real panelboards with enclosures of such ratings. Usually going to be a lead time on them. Using a load center can get you as little as two spaces or 6, 8 or 12 spaces and lesser dimension necessary where a real panelboard might be minimum of 12 or even 24 spaces and usually a 20 inch wide cabinet.

Last one I recall doing was probably about a 12 circuit QO load center installed inside a fiberglass enclosure ran to a far end of a hog barn (not your grandpa's hog barn but rather one that was like 800 feet long with several hundred hogs) to supply feed conveyors that were on that end of the building. Breaker for each motor - all "within sight" of the branch circuit device, just one larger feeder instead of multiple increased size branch circuits because of voltage drop over the distance of the run.
 
2Htm said:
Added Question - Is it safe to assume that the various brands, of the installed Double-Pole circuit breakers, have been modified to fit for installation? without pulling the breakers :unsure:
Click to expand...

I would not say it's 'safe to assume' although I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case. The panel label is a bit conflicted here, as it lists the MH-T tandem type as acceptable to use but the diagram doesn't show the typical symbol for where those can be used. The panel label does say the diagram shows the max number of poles (40), which implies that tandems are not intended to be used, but doesn't strictly prohibit them. There also do exist tandems without the rejection features for CTL panels, so it's possible they are unmodified breakers but just not listed for the panel, especially the BR one at the bottom.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
NEMA 1 only shows up on the "indoor use" part of Table 110.18. I would not see this installation as being indoor.
Click to expand...
Two interesting things about this. (technically 11.28 as jaggedben indicated). If you are standing by this table, an enclosure that is marked as NEMA 3R for example can't be installed indoors. Also, "indoors" doesn't have a definition. We often have to set aside common sense when dealing with the code. This seems to be one of those. A shed with an open front and a panel mounted in the back in a dry location, I would expect to be allowed to have a NEAM 1 panel. The above scenario, I agree should not be allowed, unless the exterior envelop moisture barrier is acceptably extended to include the door. That said, the panel is inside a door.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top