Does everyone use 300.5 for depth of GEC? Example between 2 ground rods away from the building.

Paul,

I do. Most people probably don't understand your question because that is one of the least enforced codes in Florida.

If they can't bury the GEC to code, then I make them strap it to the side of the building, from one ground rod to the next, and I consider that protected.

Throwing some dirt, cypress mulch, or pine bark on top of the conductor is not adequate, IMHO. In fact it is pretty lame.

Paul I also use the requirements of 300.5(D) as well as the requirements of 250.64(B)

Exhibit 250.25 in the handbook would be deceiving then wouldn't it?(ref 250.56)
Some might even question whether 300.5 actually applies to a single conductor



Is a single conductor a "cable"?
In that regard 300.5 is wrong because we also use it for USE
Do you apply column 1? (24")
Has anyone actually put city hubs on the rod and run RNC between them?

It is a great question if the rod is not right next to the building.

I completely agree the GEc needs to be rptoected from physical damage and 300.5 seems to be a resonable section to reference and use a a guide for determining what would be considered protected, however, attempts to get language into the NEC regarding this topic has failed the last three code cycles. Here are a few from the 2008 code cycle:

Bryan I think that the reason those proposals would not pass is because there is too much language, and it is too confusing. In reality we only need to add one last sentence (underlined below):



250.64 Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation.
Grounding electrode conductors shall be installed as specified in 250.64(A) through (F).

(A) Aluminum or Copper-Clad Aluminum Conductors. Bare aluminum or copper-clad aluminum grounding conductors shall not be used where in direct contact with masonry or the earth or where subject to corrosive conditions. Where used outside, aluminum or copper-clad aluminum grounding conductors shall not be terminated within 450 mm (18 in.) of the earth.

(B) 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.

(C) Continuous. Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be installed in one continuous length without a splice or joint except as permitted in (1) through (4):

(1) Splicing shall be permitted only by irreversible compression-type connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment or by the exothermic welding process.

(2) Sections of busbars shall be permitted to be connected together to form a grounding electrode conductor.

(3) Bonding jumper(s) from grounding electrode(s) and grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be permitted to be connected to an aluminum or copper busbar not less than 6 mm × 50 mm (¼ in. × 2 in.). The busbar shall be securely fastened and shall be installed in an accessible location. Connections shall be made by a listed connector or by the exothermic welding process.

(4) Where aluminum busbars are used, the installation shall comply with 250.64(A).

(D) Grounding Electrode Conductor Taps. Where a service consists of more than a single enclosure as permitted in 230.71(A), it shall be permitted to connect taps to the common grounding electrode conductor. Each such tap conductor shall extend to the inside of each such enclosure. The common grounding electrode conductor shall be sized in accordance with 250.66, based on the sum of the circular mil area of the largest ungrounded service entrance conductors. Where more than one set of service entrance conductors as permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 2 connect directly to a service drop or lateral, the common grounding electrode conductor shall be sized in accordance with Table 250.66 Note 1. The tap conductors shall be permitted to be sized in accordance with the grounding electrode conductors specified in 250.66 for the largest conductor serving the respective enclosures. The tap conductors shall be connected to the common grounding electrode conductor in such a manner that the common grounding electrode conductor remains without a splice or joint.

(E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Ferrous metal enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. Nonferrous metal enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous. Ferrous metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode conductor. Bonding shall apply at each end and to all intervening ferrous raceways, boxes, and enclosures between the service equipment and the grounding electrode. The bonding jumper for a grounding electrode conductor raceway or cable armor shall be the same size as, or larger than, the required enclosed grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as protection for a grounding electrode conductor, the installation shall comply with the requirements of the appropriate raceway article.

(F) To Electrode(s). A grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted to be run to any convenient grounding electrode available in the grounding electrode system, or to one or more grounding electrode(s) individually, or to the aluminum or copper busbar as permitted in 250.64(C). The grounding electrode conductor shall be sized for the largest grounding electrode conductor required among all the electrodes connected to it. Where the grouding electrode conductor is run below grade, it shall comply with the minimum burial depth per Table 300.5.




Reason:

There is confusion in the industry as to the required depth of the conductor, considering that the required depth of a ground ring is 30". So it is odd that the "conductor" run between electrodes, which would not normally carry current, could be less than that amount.

"Ground Ring. The ground ring shall be buried at a depth below the earth’s surface of not less than 750 mm (30 in.)."



SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

There us no requirement in the NEC for the GEC to comply with 300.5 Being that this state has a uniform code and a process for code amendments, there should be no jurisdiction or inspector that would require more or something different than the code itself.

90.1(b)


Maybe we should read Charlie's rule for Reading the NEC:
The idea is that after all...the code says exactly what it should say.

Mike, I believe that there is a minimum cover requirement for the grounding electrode conductor.

1) GEC is a conductor.
2) The table covers installations between "0 to 600 Volts"

Maybe he is reading the actual rule that references the table. The GEC is not a cable or conduit or other raceway(s)

The grounding electrode conductor is a conductor and the table applies if one chooses to bury it. What Mike pointed out is not specific to the table.

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.

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.

I still say you can't use a table until the text of the code directs you there and the text of 300.5(A) says "cables, conduits and other raceways" ... but that is just one man's opinion.

BTW does the structural inspector have an issue with you digging a trench a foot under the foundation when the rods are right next to the house? It would seem to me that if it rained before you got that covered back up you would lose all that certified compaction he wanted.

OK so you and Mike seem to agree, you say the wording is not there to support it, so it is not just your sole opinion.

I and others seem to think the wording is there.

I do not agree Nick. There is no code referance or wording to burial depth, no referance or wording to using the table in 300.5. Only a section in 250.64 for GEC conductors exposed on the building and subject to physical damage.

But we do have over the past few code cycles rejected proposals by the code panel that were requesting that a burial depth be put into the code.

In addition, as I said, I spoke with one of the electrical engineers at NFPA and he agreed that 300.5 does not apply and there is no burial depth in the code.

But....IF y'all want I will request a formal intrepertation from NFPA, cause I'm only interested in what is correct.

Let me know.

I can't see how 300.5 cannot apply since you are burying a conductor.


The intent of the code has always been to protect the GEC because it is like, really important and stuff.


Sure, see if you can get them to give us a straight up reply.

I guess we should just be happy that the defacto standard is a Ufer these days, making this largely moot.

Anyone want to argue about whether a Ufer can be a turned up rebar <ducking for cover>

OMG!! I thought this was a quick and easy topic.

Yep I'll debate the ufer rod turned up!!!!

Well Ruben...whats your take?

Getting back....I didn't see if anyone wants me to submit a formal intrepertation!!!

sure

Lets add another spoke.

Is the rebar upturned in a block wall or in wood frame construction?

Neal Burdick

My 2 cents;
Secure it to the structure or bury it.
Am going to require the the EC to show how deep it is buried? No
Id like to see the responce from a formal intrepertation if you have time to request one Mike.

IMHO
Neal Burdick

If everyone is going to talk about a new topic, it would be good to start it in a new post.

I can tell you right now that we will not be getting a formal interpretation from the NFPA. Even if they accepted the request, it would take months. If you go to the NFPA website, I believe there have only been 4 or 5 Formal Interps for the NEC since 1985 or something like that.

The best bet is to get a panel statement. This is an informal statement by a member of the CMP in question. These are more frequent, but hold the same weight as the Building Officials Association of Florida informal interpretations.

I have submitted the question to the Suncoast Division for the code panelist question and answer session at the Chapter Meeting and Seminar in May. Perhaps we will get something fruitful from that.

Mark Ode is supposed to be at the grounding seminar this Saturday , John Minick is supposed to be there too, Mark is an alternate to CMP3 which is where article 300 is. there may be some good opinions there

AS a side note we still have 12 seats available for this Saturday's grounding seminar. Let me know by email if your interested. I am glad to see this turned into a lively debate and I think we all agree it has to be buried to be protected but how to enforce the depth.

Gfretwell, how's this:

You can require that GEC be in pipe if it is not run along side the building. Maybe just do that. It would be a bit** to bond if they used metal and not pvc.

It will be nice to get those guys opinions also, but I have seen those code panelists change their opinion before, like flipping a light switch.

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.

I assume we are all thinking about the sleeve being PVC. As Nick says, it will be tough to put city hubs on the rods for a RMC/IMC (you better be a good measurer/rod driver) and EMT is a waste of time underground. It would be red dust in a year or two.
I guess the question is whether a #4 solid running exposed along the surface of the stucco is more vulnerable than being 6" below grade against the building.

Don't forget to factor in theft

If the second rod was 6' away from the house, not next to it, I would be a lot more worried about the GEC getting damaged.

I was also serious about digging a trench below the footing next to the house. Isn't that going to compromise the compaction?

BTW "cable armor"???

Table 300.5 Column 1 would still have you down 24"

Jesus, this is getting out of hand.
Thought this was a simple open close item!
But to be honest most installations on a residential site.
The ground rods are installed adjacent to the building. Meaning that they are as close as possible to the building footer. They usually don't extend out into the yard.
If you take that into consideration as well as the allowance to extend above the requirement to make a connection. I really don't see a issue in that case.

And I never understood that you can run a conductor just above grade and just strap it down, But if your bury it then you need to be down 12"to 24" depending on the wiring method.
Meaning I can run a #4 gec along grade level and that is okay but if I want to bury it 1' to hide it I have to dig a ditch.

I still donot see the misunderstanding with table 300.5.In column 1 it says conductor and a gec is a conductor.Seems black and white to me.

The open question is whether you can use a table out of context, without direction from the text of the article that references it. The text of 300.5 says "cables, conduits and other raceways".

The best example of a mis-applied table is 310.15(B)(6). If you do not read the text of the article you could use this for any feeder in a dwelling. I think we all agree that would be wrong.

I'm with hotsparks, black and white for me.

... so you think you can use a table out of context with no regard to the text of the article? How about my 310.15(B)(6) example?
If I just read the table, without looking at the text in the article, it sounds like this would apply to any feeder in a dwelling.

Just to throw in a curve ball or two.

If you are using Table 300.5 to require a burial depth for GEC, even though it is not refered to in 250.64, are you also requiring compliance with 300.5(D)(1)?

If you are going to use the thought process that a GEC is a direct-buried cable (conductor), then it seems the same thought process would require compliance with 300.5(D)(1).

Joe, that is a great point and is one that one could use to make the solid argument that there needs to be clarification on the burial depth of a GEC, and require new code language be added to 250.64(B).

The code seems to require that the GEC be protected. The code seems to require that when it is not run along the surface of the building, that it be in pipe. If buried, there are a plethora of issues as we can see from the discussion here.

If buried, I would still use the table rather than leave it unprotected, and make the argument that the bare copper GEC is not specifically listed for direct burial, therefore 300.5(D)(1) would not apply, and would only apply to conductors specifically listed as such.

... then isn't burying it a violation?

Certainly using that logic you could say none of 300.5 applies.
You have picked enough cherries to make a pie.

All this spinning is making my dizzy.

If you really want to have fun with this topic. Submit it to the suncoast division for the upcoming chapter meeting for code questions.
I know that would not be a formal interpretation but..
Usually all the players are there.

Missed this in this busy topic.
But anyway.
I assume you are talking about the practice to turn up a rebar out of the footer for a connection to the gec.
They called it a 7 bar because it was a piece of rebar with a 90 degree bend.
Years ago this started to happen due to ufer requirements and for misc reasons such as theft of the copper and the electrician could not make a visit before the concrete was down.

1. First issue is rebar needs to be protected also. It needs to be encased by the concrete. To prevent oxidation.
That is why they use chairs on the mesh and rebar. It is not just for strength.

2. General Contractors hated the ufer and stated concerns on damage to the rebar. Due to the exposed "7 bar " as it was called at the time.
They also voiced concern that lightning strikes caused the rebar to explode and damage the footer.

3. Last the GC's voiced concern when they found that a current was flowing to the rebar that caused the rebar to degrade over time.

4. Most all of this was discounted over time.

But I do remember when ufer connections became prevalent. There was a company called cadweld, most of us know them,that had a report on ufer connections that supported the rod electrodes as a supplement to the ufer system.
They stated that it would act as a sacrificial anode protection to the rebar.

So in my day as a contractor when I had a ufer system I always added the two ground rods . Not to make the inspector happy but to protect the ufer system and the rebar.
My 2 cents.

BTW, I always disagreed with the turned up rebar for the above reasons. But it was there. And I never felt it always met the requirement of the code, since the reabar was not always => 1/2 inch.

Oh, Another thing is try to get a acorn or jweaver clamp on a piece of rebar. Thinking of swimming pools.
What a joke.
You can turn the screw all day and just wiggle it and they are loose again. Probability has to due with the ridges on the rebar.

Nick. UL does not test the copper or conductor for direct burial it will only test the insulation.

So that brings up another point how many of you will pass a copper THHN/THWN/MTW in the earth from rod to rod? Violation! THHN/THWN/MTW is not rated for direct burial in earth.

Oh...I will send in for a formal to NFPA.

Bare copper is judged to be "suitable for the condition," so therefore it is not required to be listed as direct burial.

Scatter through the code and it says the same thing about uninsulated neutrals.

Mike you should start that in a new topic, that is why I did not bring it up here.

Good idea Ruben. I will be at the grounding seminar tomorrow and will also present the question to Mark Ode and John Minick, but I am sure I know the answer!!
I am glad to see everyone in lively banter again after that long cold winter.

Well Paul how did you like John's answer to this problem

A good time was had by all at the grounding seminar on Saturday. I want to thank Dick Widera, who while still suffering from food poisoning still got everything going and did an excellent job. I approached John Minnick before the course started with the question relating to using Table 300.5 with the related table to enforce the protection of the GEC. John's answer was that nothing in 250.64 references that but he see's nothing that would stop you either. The main point was that 250.64 (B) states A 4 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor shall be protected where exposed to physical damage.So this leaves the method up to the AHJ. He saw nothing wrong with using 300.5 but would not use the 24 inch depth. He went on to say this discussion has never come in code panel 5 all the years he has been there, but it is a worthy for future consideration. Paul, did I forget anything?

Yea, He also said it depends on whether or not you liked the contractor

And I do agree with Paul, it was an excellent seminar, a lot of very good information, and again cudos to Dick Widera

Ya and that guy gets to bury it 24 inches.

I know that if you bury it too deep the worms all come up out of the ground...

There's no doubt CMP 5 has discussed the matter as there has been not less than 3 proposals to add a burial depth to GEC's over the last 3 code cycles.

A member of my Division, Bill Pancake, is a member of CMP 5. I asked him what CMP 5's problem is with making a burial depth rule. He said that the CMP's generally do not like to mandate specific rules for "protection from damage" matters as they are generally case specific and need to be addressed by the AHJ for the specific installation.

On another subject, Bill has not been able to explain why GEC's are not required to be a certain color if insulated or covered. But that is a discussion for another topic.

Bryan, thank you for that update. Here is my comment:

Hogwash. I know the pancake man and I have the utmost respect for him. I have always liked him. But it is high time that the CMP's clarify the issue!! PINE BARK AND CYPRESS MULCH DOES NOT PREVENT PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO THE GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR!! PERIOD. If you see Bill, please congratulate him on his seat on the CMP, and please remind him that my contact info is at www.florida-building-code-expert.com in case he wants an earful, and to talk about things past.

I think that was the main point John Minnick was trying to make, let the AHJ make the call.

I like the mulch statement. Good for termites though.

But what if you put down gravel or marble chips. Very hard to dig in.

On a serious note though.
It seems we have come full circle.
Many years past most unclear items were left to the AHJ for interpretation.
Which also led to litigation.
Then over the years more clarification was added to the code.
Which leads to more AHJ interpretation.
I for one am curious as to what justifies (needs clarification meaning a code change) and what deems to be left to the AHJ having authority.

Just seems to me the panels spend an enormous amount of time to make clarifications which in the end cause more interpretation in the field by the AHJ.

I guess the problem is 250.64(B) "... A 4 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor shall be protected where exposed to physical damage..."

NFPA has always been vague about what "exposed to physical damage" really means.
I would think, being below the sod, against the wall is less "exposed" than running up from the dirt, strapped to the building.

Exactly.