Sub panel feeder ground

Shouldn’t the main panel electrical feeder to the garage sub panel have the ground bonded to the grounding buss bar? It’s snipped and bend back (see photo).

In the garages sub panel, the grounds and neutrals are mixed on an unbonded buss bar with a ground wire leading to the exterior grounding rods. The ground is connected to the neutral buss bar. I know there are several defects here in the sub panel.


It probably should be connected, is the garage attached or detached?

Detached garage

There was a time, up until the 2008 NEC that you could use the neutral for grounding purposes at a separate structure if there were no metallic paths between the two structures.

It should be connected. I have seen that done on pre 1996 ranges and dryers where no grounding conductor was needed at the receptacle.

Now, if this a detached garage it may be ok provided no other wires, cable or pluming are between the home and garage.

Also, that NM-B Romex must transition over to UF or THWN in conduit before it goes underground or overhead. Romex can not be in conduit or outside as its not rated for this.

Im curious what method was employed between the 2 buildings.

NM can be used in conduit.

I doubt those Tomic connectors are listed for the number of cable they are used with.

Thank you everyone for the informative replies.

To really provide you with the definitive answer we would need more information, and a few more photo’s of both panels would help too. :slight_smile:

Not if the conduit is underground, which is most likely happening here since we are talking about a detached building. Underground conduit is considered a wet location.

I was replying to the statement that NM cannot be used in conduit or outside. Half of that statement is wrong. I said nothing about outside or underground.

For the sake of the conversation the statement is correct. Yes I am well aware that code makes allowances for romex in conduit when indoors, but that is beyond what we are talking about. OP mentioned detached structure which doesn’t have much to do with indoor applications. Here is why: detached structure automatically means wiring methods will be employed either overhead or underground between the two structure. Both wet locations per code. Thus, if romex is being used in underground conduit it is automatically a code violation. So in this regards to the statement “NM can be used in conduit” this would be misleading for the OP’s scenario at hand.

And for the sake of correctness…NM-B is Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable and not “ROMEX”…that is simply a trademarked name from Southwire. Just to be clear on “correctness”.

As for misleading statements - You are going to get ALOT of them here…just a take it in stride. However, I would not consider any of Mr.Ports comments as misleading anymore than I would consider mine as such. They might not always be complete thoughts but the OP will get the drift of our advice.

And sorry…I have been around awhile…it ain’t gonna change;)

Whatever it is it should be capped off.

Why would use say it needs to be capped off?

A better solution is to extend it to the bus and convert the feeder to a 4 wire like it should have been.

Agreed…more than enough bare conductor to splice it and extend it to the proper grounding bus. The go and ensure the other end is now terminated properly. However, HI’s make the notice and let the potential buyer determine if they wish to ask for the fix or accept the status quo.

Why would you cap off a bare conductor?

Which is why I mentioned NM-B before romex just to get the OP on the same page. If I had to word statements for every single possible scenario outside of every post an OP made replies would happen to be pages on end just from one person. Hence why I word my statements only around the questions at hand. Its easier to understand too.

just nix Romex…lol…:wink: