Direct Burial of Cords

[augie47]

My poor memory recall a sewer pump install using cords that were marked "Suitable for Direct Burial" but I can find no Code reference.
Can a cord of any type be direct buried and, if so, do they need to be so marked ?
(Code reference, please)

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I seem to recall something similar but I cannot find a cord that is listed for DB. I have always installed the cords in a conduit

 

[augie47]

May have found it.....
http://www.ul.com/global/documents/...ctrical/newsletters/W&CMG_April2007_Final.pdf
Pg 21

 

[Smart $]

May have found it.....
http://www.ul.com/global/documents/...ctrical/newsletters/W&CMG_April2007_Final.pdf
Pg 21

Here's what document states:

16. DIRECT BURIAL

“Yes” indicates that the wire or cable has been evaluated for direct burial in the earth. Generally
not marked on the product. Notes in the tables indicate the following:

(50) When evaluated for direct burial use, the product is marked “FOR DIRECT BURIAL,”
“DIRECT BURIAL,” “DIR BUR” or “DIR BURIAL.”

Seems to contradict itself, yes?

 

[GoldDigger]

The notes apply to different specific lines in the table and may be exceptions to a more general rule (i.e. "generally")

 

[Smart $]

The notes apply to different specific lines in the table and may be exceptions to a more general rule (i.e. "generally")

Aha. Referring to Tables 1, 2, & 3:

1) If "Yes" is in the Direct Burial column, the wire/cable/cord is suitable for direct burial, but not generally marked on the product.

2) If "(50)" is in the Direct Burial column, the wire/cable/cord is suitable for direct burial and marked on the product.

NOTE: Some contain "Yes(50)"... so those would be a toss up between whether product is marked or not.

 

[GoldDigger]

No! The product would "generally" not be marked, but specifically marked in all cases. A bit awkward, but still not a contradiction.

 

[Smart $]

No! The product would "generally" not be marked, but specifically marked in all cases. A bit awkward, but still not a contradiction.

That's not how I'm reading it... (Your statements seem to be a contradiction, too. )

The "generally not marked" statement is after the "Yes" statement and in the same paragraph. I would agree with you if the "generally not marked" statement was first, in a completely separate paragraph.

Still reading it as Direct Burial column indicating "Yes" is generally not marked (but may be marked) to indicate it has been evaluated; column indicating "(50)" is always marked; column indicating "Yes(50)" can be either marked or not.

Are you aware of something I am not, and if so, what?

 

[GoldDigger]

That's not how I'm reading it... (Your statements seem to be a contradiction, too. )

The "generally not marked" statement is after the "Yes" statement and in the same paragraph. I would agree with you if the "generally not marked" statement was first, in a completely separate paragraph.

Still reading it as Direct Burial column indicating "Yes" is generally not marked (but may be marked) to indicate it has been evaluated; column indicating "(50)" is always marked; column indicating "Yes(50)" can be either marked or not.

Are you aware of something I am not, and if so, what?

I am aware of the common English convention that when two conditions are stated, without the word OR between them, it is assumed that both conditions will be met.
In this case both can be met simultaneously, since "generally not marked" and "marked in this case" are not contradictory.

 

[Smart $]

I am aware of the common English convention that when two conditions are stated, without the word OR between them, it is assumed that both conditions will be met.
In this case both can be met simultaneously, since "generally not marked" and "marked in this case" are not contradictory.

You are making this difficult. Do you agree with the following:

 

[GoldDigger]

You are making this difficult. Do you agree with the following:
View attachment 12933

No. I think that the column with both requires marking and is indistinguishable in effect from the (50) by itself.
That means that a good proofreader would have corrected the YES,(50) to just (50), but we have no control over that.
Your interpretation of "may be marked or may be not marked" is indistinguishable from just a YES.
There are not four independent outcomes, whichever way you interpret it.

 

[Smart $]

No. I think that the column with both requires marking and is indistinguishable in effect from the (50) by itself.
That means that a good proofreader would have corrected the YES,(50) to just (50), but we have no control over that.

But yet it is what it is, and you are interpreting it to mean otherwise IMO.

Your interpretation of "may be marked or may be not marked" is indistinguishable from just a YES.

That is correct. It has both "Yes" and "(50)"... and a "Yes" says it can be "not marked". It certainly can't be both!

There are not four independent outcomes, whichever way you interpret it.

IYO.
It appears we will have to disagree for the time being. :happyyes: