They could have run RMC (and of course bonded at each end) to route the conductor through and maybe anchor some angle irons around where the rods emerge, that would provide physical protection - still might be a trip hazard.Of course trip hazard isn't mentioned- it was just pointed out as a danger.
I am aware that the NEC steers clear of a lot of this type of stuff when comes to guarding against non electrical hypotheticals (as it should...) but its kind of funny though- the code is looking out for protection of the equipment, but in this scenario of the rod being subject to physical damage and someone tripping and getting gouged, the rod would be fine- the person, not so much.
Can you say OUCH!!!!!
And where does it say that? 250.53(G) only calls for 8' of rod to be in contact with soil.
As I read it you could drive an 18 foot rod only 8 feet into the ground, and the upper end may well be considered protected from physical damage just because it is roughly ten feet above ground, presuming you attach the GEC at the upper end.
No, 10 ft is allowed, and does not have to be completely below grade, as there needs to be 8 ft in contact with the soil. 250.10 tells us what to do with the exposed portion. 250.10 is little used due to the DB clamp
