Old romex in Deli

[jamesguy10]

Im replacing some 2x4 troffers in a Deli. The ones that are currently there are daisy chain wired with old black 14-3NM, not NM-B. Is it safe to just tie the new troffers into these wires? BTW, the wire is 14-3 because the old lights have 2 ballasts, one is hooked to the red, one is hooked to the black, or they are both hooked to either the red or black. Somewhere along the line, some genius decided to twist the red and black conductors together, and ended up backfeeding some of the lights, rendering one of the switches useless. Smart one he was.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

As long as romex is legal in the building it should be fine to replace the new troffers and use the old NM. If these are not electronic ballast fixtures then make sure you maintain your 3" clearance from the ballast. That would be what I would do.

 

[mdshunk]

Lacking labeling requiring 90* C wiring, go for it.

 

[yanici]

If it's in a suspended ceiling. Take a look at 2005 334.12(A)(2). Says NM not permitted exposed in dropped or suspended ceilings in other than one and two family and multifamily dwellings.

 

[iwire]

If it's in a suspended ceiling. Take a look at 2005 334.12(A)(2). Says NM not permitted exposed in dropped or suspended ceilings in other than one and two family and multifamily dwellings.

It is existing, IMO what is existing can stay but only his inspector will really know.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Im replacing some 2x4 troffers in a Deli. The ones that are currently there are daisy chain wired with old black 14-3NM, not NM-B.

I can't quite tell from your phrasing what you mean by "daisy chain".

If the NM conductors that enter a troffer lay beside the ballast inside the fixture, then there was probably a NEC violation in the original install. At the moment, I can't find the citation from the old books, but, as an apprentice I was taught that I could splice NM to troffer conductors out in the "box" of the ballast enclosure, but that I couldn't "feed through" the NM from end to end, because the NM conductors laying beside the ballast would exceed their temp limit.

If the troffers in your case don't have the NM conductors passing by the ballast, and the rest of the NM installation is within the bounds of the appropriate code at the time of installation, then, yes, re-use the NM.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I think that you should pay particular attention to Bob's and Al's posts before going ahead and using the existing NM cable. Older NM cable is not rated at 90C

 

[jamesguy10]

No, the romex is not near the ballast, it is near the end coming in to the metal plate. I started to put mc whips on the new lites, and just put the romex into a junction box in the ceiling, and tie the 12/2 mc into that.

 

[peter d]

Amsterdam, NY....right in the rust belt....I feel your pain. I've been there and I was wondering how people are surviving with most of the manufacturing gone. A lot of people there struggle to make ends meet and heat their homes, let alone have money for professional electricians. I give you a lot of credit for having a business there.