I think he is wrong becasued 250-122 is a equipment gnd table.
What were the call-outs in the scope of the work? Most spec's have boilerproof fineprint covering all of this. Opinions don't count, You have been given the sections from the
2005 NEC. All of the aforementioned posts are supported by NEC. To further gain clarity, check it out in an NEC handbook on pages 232.
Also, the TC rated cable should come with a proper sized gnd.
No it doesn't when it comes to parallel runs. That is why 250.122(F)(1) & (2) (1)(2) and (3). were wrote.
Parallel conductors should not matter.
Did you read the code section we are discussing here?
It doesn?t say what you think it says, nor what you remember it to have said, nor what you were told that it says, and certainly not what you want it to say, and if by chance you are its author, it doesn?t say what you intended it to say. Then what does it say? It says what it says. So if you want to know what it says, stop trying to remember what it says, and don?t ask anyone else. Go back and read it, and pay attention as though you were reading it for the first time.
For the whole story
go here for a great lesson in codeology.
The TC rated cable was ran in cable tray with drops to the equipment.
If your going to try and go 250.118(11) I'd say that is a serious stretch, again see comments on contractual language, and 90-4 has ruled against the present install, something is going to have change. See aforementioned and recommended changes.
No conduit.
250.122(F) in it's entirety addresses cable - go read it again and you'll see.
I need advice as this guy wants me to change the cable.
I think you've been given expert advice so far as opinion can only be offered, you alone have this problem, wherever this installation is taking place, and wants to receive financial consideration (paid). Perhaps others may weigh in, and have a different solution. I just try to go by what the NEC gives me to work with.