I guess we can see why, in spite of the fact that we have a uniform building code, we have several hundred sets of rules.

The gec is a conductor and table 300.5 column 1 covers conductors.I say its pretty black and white for the gec bural depht.

Wow I didn't realize such an easy topic could generate such an excellent conversation. I agree with Nick 100 per cent and that's how we enforce it here. The reason I posted the question was due to a contractor informing me we were enforcing it wrong and he had a proffessional interpretation from a reputable source to that effect. He went on to say no one else in the State enforces this (Usual contractor bull). Nick your right the code needs a bit of tweeking in this area. I think 300.5 (A) should be reworded: (A) Minimum cover requirements. Direct buried cable or conductors or other raceways shall be installed to meet the minimum cover requirements of table 300.5

I think that Bryan provided the information needed. Since the proposals to have a depth per table 300.5 were rejected by the code panel (even the 2008) than it is not the intent of the code to require it.

So here it is again. The NEC does NOT require it!

Mike, why don't you see the GEC as having to comply with this table?

Because the code language does not require it, and as Bryan pointed out in his post, for years any proposal for burrial depth has been rejected by the code panel. Therefore there is none.

My personal opinion at this point doesn't matter...what matters is the code, intent of code, and uniform enforcement throught the state.

The best I can think of is to submit it to the state as an amendment and get it on a Florida level.

IMHO 250.64 deals with exposed GEC installation and I don't see anything that precludes using 300.5 for buried installations. Again my humble opinion. Would you allow it to run across the grass between ground rods? If you do make them bury it, by what standard would you give them the depth?

250.64 is for exposed GEC, how to provide protection where subject to physical damage on the surface of the building, and how to secure the conductor to the surface of the building, but does not provide information or reference to cover requirements in 300.5.

I just spoke with NFPA in NY, and they have the same opinion...but did think that if the GEC run between ground rods on the surface of the ground away from the building as you spoke about would be a problem and would need to be addressed. And I agree with that. But 300.5 again is not a requirement by code.

I respectfully disagree. Show me why 300.5 is not good enough for burial of a grounding electrode conductor. Is it that as greftwell said the preamble to the chart in 300.5 (A)and if so than conductor should be added to that paragraph but otherwise I don't see it. I don't think we should arbitrarily make up depths for areas away from buildings. I like Nick's proposal about adding the sentence to 250.64 (F) or maybe a second paragraph in 250.64 (B) starting with where buried...

It is a problem. Where they do not bury it to minimum depth, the conductor is subject to damage, and also when the landscaper knocks into it, it pulls and creates tension on the clamp. How many loose ground clamps have we all seen? Like a gazillion?

Mike I do not agree with your premise that "since proposals were rejected" the code therefore does not require it. The proposals just like the law, can be rejected (or not adopted) for a million other reasons, like lousy wording. They only need to add the last sentence like I just wrote yesterday. In fact if someone would like to copy and paste my wording and submit it, go ahead. The reasoning is that the ground ring, which is an electrode (but yet still a conductor) must be buried 30 inches.

So what gives? There is obviously confusion in the code at this point, and that needs clarification. But that does not mean the GE conductor does not need to be buried to the minimal depth. Table 300.5 is all inclusive. It is not just for some conductors. It applies to all conductors.