Shared well setup legal under 225.30?

[JoeSix]

I have a situation where two intermittently occupied residences are sharing a well (which is actually not located on either property).

There is a branch circuit from the breaker box in each home into the well box, with a double-throw switch that the owners manually activate to select which residence supplies power to the well.

Is this patently illegal under 225.30?

 

[iwire]

In my opinion the AHJ could rule either way on it.

 

[james_mcquade]

I would have to question the installation.

The well is not on their property, the land owner could claim they are trespassing and also stealing.

It's not the first time i have seen this where i live.

regards,
james

 

[Sierrasparky]

I would have to question the installation.

The well is not on their property, the land owner could claim they are trespassing and also stealing.

It's not the first time i have seen this where i live.

regards,
james

I would think there would be an easement!

 

[Dennis Alwon]

This would be a violation of 225.30 in my opinion. I also think it is ridiculous setup. Who pays for the electricity when the owners are both at home? Other than honest, why would I bother to switch the power to my meter when the other guy isn't there?

 

[JoeSix]

The well is covered by a shared well agreement signed by the owners of all the properties, so this isn't a legal issue per se.

The owners turn off their breaker and close their water valve when not present. When both are there, they don't care who pays but follow a first come first serve rule.

I don't disagree that the setup seems arcane, but the owners say the pump doesn't cost all that much to run, and if you ran metered service direct to to pump, the minimum service charge from the power company would significantly exceed the actual use (and then there is the additional hassle of collecting from the neighbors, etc.). Then there is the cost of getting the meter in and reconfiguring the service.

I'm trying to figure out under what interpretation of the code (if any) it might be allowed (or conversely what explicitly disallows it).

 

[al hildenbrand]

If one assumes that a well is a "structure", then, the well structure, by virtue of the double throw switch, is supplied by only one branch circuit at a time.

As described in the OP, there doesn't seem to be a way to supply the "well structure" by more than one branch circuit at a time.

I don't think there's a violation of 225.30.

If the well is utilization equipment, and not a structure, then 225.30 doesn't apply, and again, there's not a violation.

 

[iwire]

This would be a violation of 225.30 in my opinion.

IMPO this ....

225.30 (D) Different Characteristics. Additional feeders or
branch circuits shall be permitted for different voltages,
frequencies, or phases or for different uses, such as control
of outside lighting from multiple locations.

Gives the AHJ the room to allow it if they want. The different characteristics would be metering.

 

[iwire]

If the well is utilization equipment, and not a structure, then 225.30 doesn't apply, and again, there's not a violation.

If someone drilled, sunk or otherwise created the well IMO it is a structure per the NEC.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If one assumes that a well is a "structure", then, the well structure, by virtue of the double throw switch, is supplied by only one branch circuit at a time.

You make a good point here.

 

[al hildenbrand]

And welcome to the Forum, Joe.

 

[mxslick]

If someone drilled, sunk or otherwise created the well IMO it is a structure per the NEC.

But is it inside or outside? :grin:

 

[steve66]

I agree, the AHJ could call it either way.

But I like it. Since the houses are intermittently occupied, I assume nobody is really worried about the electricity cost to run the pump. I don't think the NEC really cares about who pays for the power either - its not a safety issue.

But if house A has the power shut off, or if their breaker for the pump trips, the guy in house B can still flip the switch and run the pump from his meter. Same way vice-versa if something happess in house A. That's what I like about it.

Steve

 

[al hildenbrand]

If someone drilled, sunk or otherwise created the well IMO it is a structure per the NEC.

That Article 100 Definition of structure is so zen as to be fraught with paradox.

I've made note of the complexity of earlier discussions on this Forum around what to call a parking lot pole light . . .

But on the off chance that the well is a little cord and plug connected submersible pump lifting the water a few feet from a clear water filled depression in the ground, I thought I'd throw in the idea of "utilization equipment".

Just trying to cover the bases.

 

[iwire]

That Article 100 Definition of structure is so zen as to be fraught with paradox.

Without a doubt but I believe it is the same (or close to it) definition used in the building codes.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Without a doubt but I believe it is the same (or close to it) definition used in the building codes.

Indeed.

The NEC Handbook includes the explanatory text exactly to your point:

2008 NECH Article 100 Definition of Structure explanatory text

The definition of structure allows architects, electrical engineers, general contractors, electrical contractors, and all building officials to use the same definition.

 

[JoeSix]

Would the "same property" and "single management" provisions of 225.30 provide an out? (e.g. the well is on a different property, and it's not under single management either).

 

[al hildenbrand]

Would the "same property" and "single management" provisions of 225.30 provide an out? (e.g. the well is on a different property, and it's not under single management either).

2008 NEC 225.30

Where more than one building or other structure is on the same property and under single management, each additional building or other structure that is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load side of the service disconnecting means shall be supplied by only one feeder or branch circuit . . .

One way that I read this is: where two structures are present, any structure supplied by a branch circuit from another structure shall . . . yada yada.

But the other way I read this is: where two structures are present, a third structure, supplied by a branch circuit . . . yada yada, AND, the location of the third structure is given a silence which implies the third structure can be anywhere.

The object of the word "additional" isn't clear. Additional to one building, or additional to the multiple buildings that are there?

 

[JoeSix]

^^^^^

I read "additional" as additional to one building, as the entire section begins "Where more than one...".

(In this case, one or both of the residences are the only structures present on their respective properties, so that muddies the water further)

Also, regardless of how the location applies, the additional structure of the well is not under "single management" per se. It's jointly managed by all the property owners.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Why not just go solar and then neither one would have to pay for it.