2002 NEC (300.5)

[aphares]

In viewing residential burial requirements from 300.5 nec. I am coming to the conclusion that a direct burial cable could be at a depth of 18".
Based on using the table 300.5.
6th requirement down covers residential requirements. Stating "One- and two- family dwelling driveways and outdoor parking areas,
*** and used only for dwelling-related purpose.***"

Covering this article requirement, and breaking down the paragraph. residential driveways Is addressed, as well as “used for dwelling purposes only”, this last statement reads to me this would cover the yard as well. It does not make sense for the burial area of a driveway to be less than that of the yard.
The reason I am asking. It has been suggested to us the 24" requirement at the top. "all locations not specified below" . Evan thou yard is not specified I believe it is used only for dwelling related purposes.
Thank you, please incite me

[imported_Ron]

It is less likely that sprinkler piping, tent stakes, mailbox posts, etc will be buried into a driveway. Hence the less inch requirement for under a driveway.
The "and used only for dwelling-related purpose" is there since a commercial driveway is more likely to have heavier trucks upon it, thus requiring a deeper burial.

For a yard light with UF cable, go 24" deep (from column 1). How about looking at column 4, if you put GFCI protection on the circuit, you could go 12".

[Wgoodrich]

For years I have quoted 18" concering direct burial wiring in residential settings, including yards.
Recently it was pointed out to me the exact wording that you are referring to in NEC 300.5. See a copied section of this certain NEC rule in 300.5;

NEC 2002 copied section;

Table 300.5
18" deep
One- and two-family dwelling driveways and outdoor parking areas, and used only for dwelling-related purposes

Now you mentioned while disecting the wording of that sentence seeking true meaning you came up with a meaning that the wording is saying any part of a property as long as it is "only for dwelling-related purposes".

This was essentially the way that I read this sentence until it was pointed out that concerning the NEC it is more common when providing different sections of a rule the wording would be broken into two sentences. I could not dispute that statement. Then it was pointed out to me that the word in definition was "and". If the meaning was to be to give you an option wouldn't that be the word "or" instead of "and"? I had to work on that question issued to me for quite a while. Then I read that sentence again ove and over. I then translated the sentence to read that you were allowed to bury a minimum of 18" but only for dwelling driveways and parking areas. The big question was if the words after the and was giving you a second option. I then had to concede what was being shown to me in a different interpretation of that sentence.

If you were installing say street lighting owned by a factory on private land. This last part of that sentence added the limit to keep someone from burying the commercially used wiring to serve that commercial parking area next door under the neighbors drive way and only burying it 18" deep although it is a commercially used wire.

I am of the belief that the word "and" instead of "or" makes this last part of that sentence and added requirement of the rule stated in the beginning of that same sentence found before the "and".

I believe intent is to add to that rule a stronger restriction instead of giving you a second option. If it was intended to allow wires buried in land for dwelling purposes only including all land of that dwelling then why state the under dwelling driveway and dwelling parking lot at all?

I am now believing that this certain rule allows concerning direct buried cables that the reduction from 24" to 18" to be allowed only under the dwelling driveway and dwelling parking lot and not that are that is not under that driveway and parking lot. Then I believe that it is adding a further restriction of reducing to 18" only if the wires are used for a dwelling purpose and not farm or commercial.

Is there anyone else out there that would like to interpret this certain rule in question. I would like to entertain many opinions on the true intent of the wording in Table 300.5. I believe also that Aphares is also looking for more opinions on this interpretation of that certain rule also.

If I am right in this new interpretation of that sentence then I have quoted the wrong 18" depth for direct buried wiring in residential settings for a decade at least.

Anyone else have an opinion on this one?

Curious

Wg