Shared well setup legal under 225.30?

[JoeSix]

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

If the pump costs $15/month to operate on average (probably not even this much), how long to break-even on the conversion?

 

[cowboyjwc]

If the pump costs $15/month to operate on average (probably not even this much), how long to break-even on the conversion?

Well one month if you're the one that's not paying it that month.

But it's a fair question, but if your bill is only $130 a month when does a $20,000 solar system pay for it's self?

 

[dbuckley]

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 . .

We already know that the well (the "structure") is not on the same property as either of the two homes that use the well. And I'd interpret what has been said to mean that the structure isn't under single management either, as three parties could legitimately operate the changeover switch: either homeowner, or the land owner of the land that the structure is on. So surely 225.30 is thusly not applicable.

 

[jetlag]

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

It would for sure be in some type of well house enclosure and that would be a structure. This is an awful set up , neighbours can get into dissagreements , I would drill my own well if possible. One neighbour can leave the hose on all night by mistake and pump the well dry and burn up the pump . Who will buy the new pump

 

[jetlag]

Im sure the power co would have a big problem with that , The person that owns the prop could pull up a camper and get current, That would be supplying service to a different property and owner. They might allow it on an extension cord but not a permanent buried line

 

[hurk27]

would 210.25 apply?

 

[al hildenbrand]

would 210.25 apply?

To begin with, looking at just 210.25(B), 210.25(B) doesn't apply because of the list of "a two-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling or a multi-occupancy building". There is nothing, that I read, in 210.25(B) that also includes a stand alone single dwelling unit.

210.25(A) is another matter, however. 210.25(A) uses the Article 100 defined term dwelling unit. By itself, 210.25(A) seems to apply, BUT, it is under the section title "Branch Circuits in Buildings with More Than One Occupancy."

How one construes the meaning of "Buildings with More Than One Occupancy" is the issue.

1. If the section title is construed to mean only: any building containing more than one occupant, then NO, 210.25 can't apply to the OP situation because neither of the two "residences" has more than one occupancy.

2. On the other hand, if the section title is construed to mean: more than one building where the occupant of one building is different than the occupant of another building, then YES. Personally, I think this is a stretch of the meaning.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I feel compelled to inquire about the situation in the opening post (OP).

As the OP presents the situation, the parties involved seem to be exhibiting all the symptoms of the better side of human nature. Using the Code to alter the very process (the shared operation of the well) that results in a living example of cooperative behaviour in a small group of individuals, seems like getting a bad mark for good behaviour.

 

[hillbilly1]

Look at this from a different direction, it is no different than having a back up generator with a manual transfer switch, it's just that the other homeowner is the generator. I have used this setup, except automatic, using an alternating relay and a motor reversing contactor for a customer that shared a well full time. Many large airports have two utility feeds to one building feeding the same gear and load.

 

[JoeSix]

I feel compelled to inquire about the situation in the opening post (OP).

As the OP presents the situation, the parties involved seem to be exhibiting all the symptoms of the better side of human nature. Using the Code to alter the very process (the shared operation of the well) that results in a living example of cooperative behaviour in a small group of individuals, seems like getting a bad mark for good behaviour.

This is exactly the case -- everyone appears content with the arrangement and is not interested in changing it. However, there is some new construction that will likely result in an inspection of the well. If it's an arguably legal setup, then there should not be a problem and everyone will be happy. On the other hand, if it's not then it's better to find an acceptable alternative solution sooner rather than later.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Is a well a structure ? What is it made of ? A well is nothing more than a hole in the ground that lets water fill it.

One way to solve this is 2 pumps . Another way would be to work out a deal of 1 pays the bill on his meter and other gives him $10 a month or a number that can be agreed on. Or let A supply it 1 month then B supplies it. Amount is too small to spend much on it. Perhaps put water meter on both to measure gallons and arrive at number that way

 

[jetlag]

This is exactly the case -- everyone appears content with the arrangement and is not interested in changing it. However, there is some new construction that will likely result in an inspection of the well. If it's an arguably legal setup, then there should not be a problem and everyone will be happy. On the other hand, if it's not then it's better to find an acceptable alternative solution sooner rather than later.

I dont remember the code section but running 2 services in the same structure is a violation except in extreme cases and under certain conditions like when a building is so long it gets a voltage drop at other end. There is surely a pump house of some kind to protect the knife switch even if a submerged pump there are controll boxes to mount. I can tell you if power co gets wind of it they will have to put a service from poco on the well in the owner of property's name. Its a case of people trying to avoid the minimum poco charge by making illegal connections

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Is one issue that might cause problem. The switch would need to be listed for this use and likely is not. If that is the case then install cord on pump and have a receptacle from each house.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I dont remember the code section but running 2 services in the same structure is . . .

Jet,

Take a moment and read the first two pages of this thread.

 

[jetlag]

Jet,

Take a moment and read the first two pages of this thread.

I have already read and cant believe some are approving of this set up , do they realize a property owner has two hot wires coming into his property that can not be turned off with out going into someone elses house if they are not home. What few double knife switches Ive seen had exposed hot parts , who will get sued if someone gets zapped ? What if the owner wants water himself ? they said when gone they turn both flip the breaker and turn of the valve ?

 

[JoeSix]

I have already read and cant believe some are approving of this set up , do they realize a property owner has two hot wires coming into his property that can not be turned off with out going into someone elses house if they are not home. What few double knife switches Ive seen had exposed hot parts , who will get sued if someone gets zapped ? What if the owner wants water himself ? they said when gone they turn both flip the breaker and turn of the valve ?

The well is sited on a property line between two adjoining properties, both of which are current vacant. There are no "owners" with an interest in the well except those have tapped into it and can supply their own power to the well if they need it.

The issue of multiple possibly hot wires coming in is a possible source of concern, but seems resolvable (e.g. require the owners to provide an external disconnect). Does the code cover this specifically?

 

[mxslick]

I feel compelled to inquire about the situation in the opening post (OP).

As the OP presents the situation, the parties involved seem to be exhibiting all the symptoms of the better side of human nature. Using the Code to alter the very process (the shared operation of the well) that results in a living example of cooperative behaviour in a small group of individuals, seems like getting a bad mark for good behaviour.

Exactly, and it's a trend I have both been party to and seen too much of lately.

Look at this from a different direction, it is no different than having a back up generator with a manual transfer switch, it's just that the other homeowner is the generator. I have used this setup, except automatic, using an alternating relay and a motor reversing contactor for a customer that shared a well full time. Many large airports have two utility feeds to one building feeding the same gear and load.

I agree 100% with this assessment of the situation. If the switch involved in the OP's situation is properly sized for the load and otherwise suitable for the purpose, I see no violation at all.

 

[kwired]

I dont remember the code section but running 2 services in the same structure is a violation except in extreme cases and under certain conditions like when a building is so long it gets a voltage drop at other end. There is surely a pump house of some kind to protect the knife switch even if a submerged pump there are controll boxes to mount. I can tell you if power co gets wind of it they will have to put a service from poco on the well in the owner of property's name. Its a case of people trying to avoid the minimum poco charge by making illegal connections

A. It is not service equipment it is feeders/branch circuits.

B. They could still have a well and not power it from electric utility, why do you think the POCO would get involved, especially over $15-20 per month, they will have more expense in this service than income over the life of the equipment.

I have already read and cant believe some are approving of this set up , do they realize a property owner has two hot wires coming into his property that can not be turned off with out going into someone elses house if they are not home. What few double knife switches Ive seen had exposed hot parts , who will get sued if someone gets zapped ? What if the owner wants water himself ? they said when gone they turn both flip the breaker and turn of the valve ?

You can't turn off service conductors without involving POCO equipment either. I like JoeSix's idea of a disconnect from each house that is accessible from outside of the house so power could be turned off if the neighbor is not available and it needs turned off for some reason. And if we call this a separate structure 225.31 would require it, 225.36 requires the disconnect to be rated as suitable for use as service equipment, many transfer switches, especially the small ones that would be used for this, are not rated for use as service equipment.

 

[hillbilly1]

B. They could still have a well and not power it from electric utility, why do you think the POCO would get involved, especially over $15-20 per month, they will have more expense in this service than income over the life of the equipment.

Exactly, our POCO no longer will set meters for residental wells, The meter readers have a hard time getting to a lot of them due to the terrain, and the payoff of having to run lines and a transformer has a negative payoff, even with a minimum billing rate.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Why not solve this cheap and easy. Unhook neighbor so is no violation. The switch is now a disconnect (mark it on &off) . Now inspector has no issue and seriously dought we cares if its your property or just the right of use. When ink dries i think you know what to do.