I didn't say that 300.5 wasn't good enough. What I said is that the code does not require burial depth's for GEC or the use of 300.5 for that purpose. NFPA agreed..proposals requesting code language for burial depths that were rejected prove that it's not in the code now. So I see no legal way to do it.

So Nick....

Since you agree that the wording is not there....than it's not there.

Do I agree that something should be addressed and put into the code? Yes I do! But I can't require something that isn't there. I have them run it close to the building so it's not out in the open.

No, you are misunderstanding me.

I think the wording is there. The table is for buried conductors. But for some reason some people are reluctant to enforce this on a GEC. So my wording is not to change, but to clarify that it was the intent all along. If you bury a conductor, it must be to the minimum burial depth. If you run it along the surface of a building, then it must be secured, etc. The wording and the intent is there.

There is far more wording and evidence to enforce it then not to.

Well the wording is there:
Note 1 under the table states it is for conductors.
However using the all others row and Column 1 states:
24".
Okay that is fine but then goto column 4
residential circuits 120v 20a or less on a gfci and you only need 12". So what the heck.
Then scroll down to the row that deals with ony residential and you see column 1 says 18" but column 4 says 12"
So are we protecting a conductor or personnel with that table?
Another post compared this issue to a ground ring. But I think there is no comparison.
You need the depth to get a good path to ground. Has nothing to do with protection of the conductor.

My 2cents.

But Ruben, the intent of the code is always to protect the grounding electrode conductor. Not one person has convinced me otherwise thus far. That is the intent of the code - that the GEC remain protected from physical damage. So much so, that in some instances the code mandates that it be run inside pipe or conduit:

Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage. Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its enclosure shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it is carried. A 4 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor shall be protected where exposed to physical damage. A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection where it is securely fastened to the construction; otherwise, it shall be in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor. Grounding electrode conductors smaller than 6 AWG shall be in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor.


Sidebar comments:

Column 4 is only applicable to a 20 amp circuit, GFCI.

The table is the minimum burial depth for conductors.

The purpose of ground ring at 30 inches is not solely for grounding it is also for protection of the conductor.

So you say.
I am not disagreeing on your viewpoint.
But still...
We both are making assumptions on the reasons in the code.
There is nothing that states the purpose for the 30" requirement for a ground ring. {In the book}.
Nor the discrepancy of depth for different types of conductors.
All I am saying is which column, row would apply to a GEC.
Or for that matter a grounded or grounding conductor.
The table seems to target ungrounded conductors.
I don't think that part is very clear.

Perhaps we need an opinion from the style manual. Does a table referenced from an article trump the language used in the article that references it?

I understood you needed the written text of the article to decide how and when to use the table but I could be wrong.

It is very clear that NFPA has a language problem here they should fix, one way or the other. They do seem to be saying they do not think table 300.5 apples to GECs when I read the ROP excerpts Bryan posted.

Until then the contractors will need a GPS to figure out how deep the GEC goes I guess. Maybe Apple has an ap for that too

I do see one conundrum here. If you have to excavate 24" to put the acorn in there, is the rod truly "driven" 8 feet? Do you really need a 10' rod?

I think you are off topic because the table permits lesser depths where conductors rise for termination. The clamp does not come into play. Lenght of ground rods do not enter the question. The issue is the minimum burial depth of a conductor and whether or not you think the GEC, when buried, should be buried according to Table 300.5. That is the issue here.

I suppose then the question is how great a slope can you have for the rise to termination and not disturb the soil around the rod. The total span between rods is only 6' and you are going up and down a total of 4' I suppose if you slope at 45 degrees, 2 feet of that EGC is pretty safe

Again, I think you are off topic because the table permits lesser depths where conductors rise for termination. The issue is the minimum burial depth of a conductor and whether or not you think the GEC, when buried, should be buried according to Table 300.5. That is the issue here.