Two disconnects

Condo inspection with a meter bank in the underground garage; each meter has its own 100 amp disconnect. I was expecting to see an RDP in the unit; but it was a regular panel with a 125 amp main disconnect. Why would there be two disconnects, and is this an appropriate installation?

An RDP doesn’t need an OCPD, but it can still have one.

There is only One service disconnect per building/unit. This one is at the meter. The 125 amp “main” in the sub-panel is for convenience.

The above info is based on your description.

2005 and prior codes required a lighting and appliance panel board to have a breaker that disconnected all ungrounded conducotrs.

A lighting and appliance panel board was defined as a panel with 10% or more of its overcurrent decices 30 amps or less that used the neutral.

So maybe at the time it was wired the main in the inside panel might have been required to have a main

I was thinking that it may be convenience. First time I have seen this and wasn’t sure. Also, I do not think this is an RDP, but can’t confirm since I don’t open meter banks of this type. There is a bond present in the unit panel.

Maybe, the building was built in 2004 and we are in the Chicago area.

Here are some images

Images of panel

Panel and meter images

A few images may help

Wouldn’t the protection of the feeder, in this case the 100 main eliminate the need for a main OCPD at the panel?

I would think so.

This is, in fact, a MDP (sub panel) and the 125A breaker is merely a disconnect. It appears to have a bonding screw in place on the tie-bar for the neutral terminals, which would need to be removed.

I would be sure to mention the paint/plaster contamination within the panel. Also, based on the year of construction, you should have that AFCI breaker looked at to ensure it’s not a recalled breaker.

In Chicago do they not require egc’s?

We often use conduit.
I see nothing at all unusual in the images and would only recommend the bond screw be removed.
Mike must do far fewer condos than I expected.

None of that glorified sloppy looking extension cord allowed around here :slight_smile:

Hey Bob, I didn’t have a question about the bond, I reported it needs to be removed. My only question was about the two disconnects. I have not seen that in the millions of condo inspections I have done. :slight_smile:

By exception you are correct but there are many places that only refer to the body of the text when enforcing.
The main in the remote panel is not nor has it ever been required if the feeder has protection if in the same building but we have to remember not all enforce the same way.

In my classes in years gone by I have had many that could only see this;
(A) Lighting and Appliance Branch-Circuit Panelboard Individually Protected. Each lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard shall be individually protected on the supply side by not more than two main circuit breakers or two sets of fuses having a combined rating not greater than that of the panelboard.
and it would take some explaining on my part to show them this;
Exception No. 1: Individual protection for a lighting and appliance panelboard shall not be required if the panelboard feeder has overcurrent protection not greater than the rating of the panelboard.

in most cases the confusion came from;
225.36 Suitable for Service Equipment.
The disconnecting means specified in 225.31 shall be suitable for use as service equipment.

Simply because the title of 225 has the word feeder in it

Mike I see that at most to be honest.
Guess I was surprised at he question.
Report for 1935 courtyard building I am on right now has man breaker at sub and at meter in basement.

Only issue is they have all 20’s except the bathroom which is 15 amp…lol
I know you were not concerned about the bonding guess I was talking to the out of state guys there.

Mike, I see a bond running from the bushing and landing on the neutral bar. Also, are the KO’s eccentric or are they concentric?

Ok, So I don’t like commenting on images that I can’t see very well but I will make some statements based on the various responses I had gleamed over in this thread.

Firstly, a bonding bushing would not be required on this remote distribution panel as shown. If indeed the raceway is being used as the EGC then any bonding jumper from the raceway to the grounded (neutral) conductor would be a violation of 250.24(A)(5). Also unless the eccentric or concentric KO’s are damaged a bonding jumper is not required due to this being a feeder supplying power to this remote distribution panel per 250.96(A).

In terms of the OCPD on the remote distribution panelboard; I think you may find that in many cases it was cheaper to buy the panel with the OCPD versus a main lug style. Not always but in some power configurations it would apply due to supply and demand , and production.

I also agree that with the passing of the " Lighting and Appliance" panelboard statement in 230.36 code users sometimes experience additional confusion.

Peace Fella’s…Off on the road again !

Paul, even though a bonding bushing is not required, since it is installed and the bonding conductor is landed on the neutral bar, it is a violation. The reason I asked about the eccentric or concentric KO’s is all to often I see that they are broken and are not providing a completed path for fault current when conduits are used as the egc. We both know how common this is. :wink: Some may not be aware of how important of an issue this is when conduits are used as the egc

I agree, the bonding jumper should be removed from the neutral bar and connected to either a EGC bus or directly to the enclosure.