IRC vs. NEC

Status
Not open for further replies.

ryan_618

Senior Member
I am in the middle of writing a letter to our state board encouring them to continue the use of the NEC as opposed to the IRC. In case anyone in interested, I have assembled a small list of some the technical differences between the 2.

1) E3303.3 requires that all electrical equipment be listed. This is not even a possibility, much less a good idea. Many items of an electrical installation do not have a standard by which they can be listed, so compliance with this requirement is impossibility.

2) E3304.2 requires a minimum interrupting capacity of not less than 10,000 amperes, where the NEC permits 5,000. This is a foolish conflict, as overcurrent protection devices should be selected based on the available fault current, not an abstract number. The number 5,000 is selected in the NEC to mirror the UL listing requirement.

3) E3305.2 governs dedicated electrical space. The IRC addresses only the clearance above the panel, whereas the NEC addresses the clearance both above and below the panel.

4) E3603.2 permits the small appliance branch circuits of a kitchen to supply any and all receptacles in the kitchen. This would allow the dishwasher, disposal and trash compactor to be on the same circuit as the kitchen countertop receptacles. The NEC prohibits this practice, for good reason.

5) E3603.3 requires at least one 20 ampere circuit to supply all of the receptacles in the laundry. The NEC permits a combination of both 15 and 20 ampere circuits for this purpose.

6) E3604.1 permits a reduced conductor size for feeders supplying a dwelling unit, as does the NEC. The IRC, however, only permits this reduction if the feeder circuit serves 100% of the dwelling unit load. The NEC permits this reduction for any feeder serving a dwelling, regardless of the percentage of the load it is serving. This conflict makes for a significant increase in cost for both the installer and the end user.

7) E3604.3 contains a table that requires a separate and different load calculation that service conductors. The NEC contains only one table, as that should be all that is needed.

8) E3604.7 requires all conductors to have overcurrent protection at the point where the conductors receive their supply. Because of this, the common installation practice of installing ?feeder taps? is not permitted by the IRC.

9) E3703.2 Requires a warning ribbon for all underground service conductors, whereas the NEC requires this only where the service conductors are directly buried without a conduit system.

If anyone knows of anymore that could be added to the list, that would be great. Thanks,
 
Mark Anderson has convinced (with some help) the State of New York to reference the 2005 NEC for their new code cycle (ICC), which this year is the ICC cycle year. Prior, NYS was referencing the '99 NEC. So I believe it can be done, you just may need some help.
 
Re: IRC vs. NEC

ryan_618 said:
9) E3703.2 Requires a warning ribbon for all underground service conductors, whereas the NEC requires this only where the service conductors are directly buried without a conduit system.
I disagree.
300.5(D)(3) Service Conductors. Underground service conductors
that are not encased in concrete and that are buried 450 mm (18 in.) or more below grade shall have their location identified by a warning ribbon that is placed in the trench at least 300 mm (12 in.) above the underground installation.
Why does this exclude conductors inside raceways?
 
Excuse me while I pull this shoe outta my mouth...

Excuse me while I pull this shoe outta my mouth...

Looks like it, good call! Thanks! :)

One caution to the quiet ones in the crowd, different POCO's have different requirements, so careful about that... ;)
 
To me, the most significant difference is that the IRC is not an ANSI Standard; the NEC is.

To the best of my knowledge the only ICC document with ANSI recognition is A117. This is because the ICC is not generally a consensus based organization; the NFPA is.
 
We use the IRC here. I really don't understand the need for the thing. I find it a little inconvenient, when I am here, since this is an NEC forum. The thing that boggles my mind is how the book is silent on things like generators or low voltage lights. Does that mean I can install them however I want? (I don't) I keep meaning to call the state and ask them that very question.
 
Ryan, Another huge difference is the IRC has no provision for ungrounded receptacles on existing circuits or extensions of existing circuits, ie: no GFCI substitutions. This to me is stupid and a major pain.
I am going from the MRC, which is the IRC with MI amendments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top