All lighting on RCBO s

JL spark

So ET10101 states rcd on all light circuits,

Every job (domestic) I’ve put rcbos on lights the last 3 years as standard, had a change of contractor job , where we went in and completed the installation after another spark , I rewired all the lights and put them on rcbos

my inspector came out to inspect the job ,

I was told the bathroom should only be on a rcbo ( I’m aware of this reg ) surly I’ve over done the safety side by putting them all on rcbos

what do ye think ? A case of a inspector pushing his weight,

2011

I assume that the inspector meant that the bathroom should be on a dedicated circuit?

I guess the risk with RCDs is that there is an increased risk of nuisance tripping particularly with bathrooms. My guess: Theoretically, this could impede someone when trying to escape if on the same circuit as other lighting along the escape route.

By putting RCD protection on lighting circuits it substitutes one type of risk for another. However, regardless of personal opinions the rules must be adhered to.

Risteard81

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058209386/all-lighting-on-rcbo-s

Was this Change of Contractor job being completed and certified to ET101 or I.S. 10101?

JL spark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117909276#Comment_117909276

No it was previous regs,

Risteard81

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117910060#Comment_117910060

So ET 101 then. Which requires dedicated RCDs for all bathroom circuits, which means bathroom lighting needs it's own RCD (usually achieved with an RCBO). So the RECI Inspector is 100% correct.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117910631#Comment_117910631

And dedicated RCD’s were provided, so that requirement was met.

Is the inspector saying that the RCBO’s you have installed on each lighting circuit should now be removed, with the exception of the bathroom?

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117908132#Comment_117908132

The OP does say that he is using RCBO’s on each circuit rather than a single RCD serving multiple MCB’s. Is nuisance tripping really likely to be a legitimate issue in circumstances where the circuit is otherwise in good order? If there was one RCD protecting multiple lighting MCB’s I would get the argument.

If the installation was been carried out newly today, they would all need RCD protection, and I don’t think there is even any particular requirement for individual RCBO’s. Looks to me like the inspector is being a little unreasonable.

2011

Personally I wouldn’t put all of the lighting circuits on a single RCD. I would use an RCBO per circuit despite the additional cost.

Risteard81

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117912945#Comment_117912945

The bathroom lighting would need to be on its own dedicated RCD, i.e. it couldn't be served by the lighting for that floor for example. So you would need a dedicated Bathroom Lights RCBO which isn't Ground Floor or 1st Floor lighting, as an example.

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117913286#Comment_117913286

That is all well and good but I would still have an RCBO per lighting circuit.

Risteard81

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117913651#Comment_117913651

I never suggested not to - I'm just pointing out that the Inspector is correct to insist on the Bathroom Lights being on a separate RCD to all other lights if the job is being certified to ET 101:2008.

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117913658#Comment_117913658

Yup, and I did not disagree with you or the inspector's position. I'm just stating how I would do this.