I?ve reread the OP a couple of times and confess I still may not have a completely clear picture of the installation ? so I?ll need to make a few assumptions. Feel free to correct my misconceptions. It sounds like the inspector may have been to a seminar since last year
. It also appears to me he is probably correct, but needed to ?drill down? a bit further for total references. The references he did cite weren?t wrong, they were just incomplete.
Since you were cited under Art 514, I will assume we are dealing with a dispensing system. This is one of the few times the second paragraph of Section 90.7 doesn?t entirely apply. Occasionally, the NFPA Manual of Style gets in the way of clear intent because of restrictions placed on citing ?outside? standards. In this case, see the Table 514.3(B)(1), FPN reference to UL 87 in the line ?Dispenser.? The Table doesn?t define the area classification
inside the dispenser; it is left to UL 87. However, it is likely internal wiring, and definitely wiring routed through the pit will pass through a
Division 1 location. The inspector appears to be citing 511.11 (A)
in conjunction with 501.40. A push button alone is not considered to be an adequate disconnecting means. In combination with a shunt-trip breaker, it may be. I don?t necessarily agree it must be accomplished specifically at the panel; but the disconnect must positively and simultaneously interrupt all circuit conductors, including the grounded conductor and, once opened, cannot be reset without a manual operation.
The 514.16 citation however, may be slight overkill. It is probably a misunderstanding of the reference in 514.16 to Section 501.30. Subsection 501.30(A)
may give the false impression of the bonding requirements he mentioned; but it needs to be interpreted in light of the basic rule in 501.30. That is, grounding/bonding must first be consistent with Art 250 with the
additional requirements of 501.30(A) and (B). Subsection 501.30(B) doesn?t apply in this particular discussion.
Properly understood, grounding/bonding consistent with Art 250 is acceptable in classified locations where the wiring methods per 501.10 are used (in the classified location) with the additional 501.30(A) restriction that ??locknut-bushing and double-locknut types of contacts shall not be depended on for bonding purposes?? Where locknut-bushing or double-locknut methods would have otherwise been acceptable in
ordinary locations, ??bonding jumpers with proper fittings or other approved means of bonding shall be used? and, for those specific cases only, ?
uch means of bonding shall apply to all intervening raceways, fittings, boxes, enclosures, and so forth between Class I locations and the point of grounding for service equipment or point of grounding of a separately derived system.? The Exception doesn?t apply to this discussion.
In other words, locknut-bushing or double-locknut bonding is not permissible without supplemental bonding means in the bonding path to the point of grounding for service equipment or a separately derived system - whether the entire run is in the classified location or not. But other bonding methods that would otherwise be suitable for the wiring method in the ordinary location part of the run are acceptable.
When properly applied, locknut-bushing and double-locknut bonding are suitable for the grounding/bonding path for fault clearing ? even in classified locations. However, there is sufficient evidence that fault currents and even some harmonic currents will arc at those bonding locations and they are capable of igniting a flammable atmosphere. For such bonds outside the classified location, CMP 14 is still concerned that the fault path be as low impedance as possible.
The reference to 250.100 is also material ? with one proviso. Section 250.100 has another forwarding reference to 250.92(B)(2) through (B)(4). Since threadless wiring methods are not acceptable in classified locations, 250.92(B)(3) doesn?t actually apply ? no matter what 250.100 says.
