The requirement under PUWER98 is that a separate deliberate act is required to re-energise a system after the initiation of a stop or emergency stop command.
Please refer to HSE ACoP L22.
Think of a DOL motor starter would you find it acceptable for say a saw to restart on the release of the e-stop button? Or would you expect to have to depress the start button first?
Think of the failure modes for a moment, the OP’s specifier appears to have given them a cursory thought. He has asked for an “overall” e-stop. Presumably this would be in case there is a failure in the control system of the machine such that the stop system did not function, or the machine started unexpectedly, thus A.N. Other could de-energise the machines remotely without having to approach the local isolator, which by definition is local to the machine!
However, is a single e-stop adequate, this boils down to the old chestnut of risk assessment. As you said based on room size accessibility etc.
However, what is unacceptable under PUWER98 & BS EN 60204-1 is the re-energising of a control circuit via the release of a stop control.
The nearest analogy is the central switching systems specified by BS4163.
Here in the link is drawn to PUWER98 and the guidance there in which takes you to 60204, even though these systems are fixed wiring in buildings, 7671 does not cover these types of control, thus bows out to statutory legislation, i.e. EAWR89, & PUWER98 which takes you to 60204.
You should not allow a contactor to be re-energised by the release of a stop button under any circumstances, I have frightened a few people with this scenario!
A bog standard em-stop/contactor circuit would be controlling machinery!
Why would you fit a contactor to control a ring main as a ring main is a standard arrangement of circuit from 7671?
This does not require an e-stop, if it does, then other legislation/guidance has come into play & you thus must therefore comply with that. Ergo my previous comments.
DP switching requirements should be checked, IIRC & it is now late & my copy of 4163 is not to hand, this requires all live conductors to be switched.
You must remember that in the event of an incident then the most appropriate guidance to the system will be selected and expert witnesses may well draw analogies to 4163 as it is the most similar to this situation.
Missed the comment wrt the neutral. No reason at all for the N to be taken anywhere except A2 on the contactor!
O/L protection should be looked at for the control circuit as the control devices will not be able to take the full 32A load of the power CPD. Also the controls are controlling supplies from 4 CPD’s.
I would utilise 2 or 3 contactors at least, however, first would be an FMEA, RA & PUWER98 assessment of the install and draft a design & functional spec from that.
You also need to understand that once you start fitting e-stops then you are suggesting that the equipment is safety related, thus it becomes a safety related part of a control system. As I have already stated, you would need to assess the SIL required, remembering that much of the standards in this area are in a state of flux at the moment.
There comes another whole raft of legislation and guidance, testing proof, acceptability trials etc. when you start with safety related parts of control systems En 954 being one standard, but please see last paragraph.
BTW I still think the original design is flawed and unable to function correctly, safely or even at all based on the info given, which is one of the limitations of such forums.
There is more to this circuit than 7671 which was the point of my advice to the OP.
I have probably said too much already, at this point I probably need to add my legal disclaimer FWIW.
This post is NOT a rigorous technical paper, is simplified and does not cover every conceivable condition, or variable. It is also not written in strictly correct technical terminology. I have worded the post to hopefully explain the situation with regard to the previous posts and the typical situations that may be seen.
I cannot give formal professional advice on this forum as my professional indemnity insurance will not allow this, and due to the remote nature of the information and advice, any communications cannot be construed as such professional advice.
The above comments are advice given as seen in good faith, as I personally understand the legislation based on my qualifications in engineering & H&S, along with the information which I have been provided at the time they were made.
They are made in good faith based on the situation as understood.
Please remember I do not have the full facts relating to the situation, nor am I able to obtain these easily, thus my advice has to be taken in the context which it is given. It cannot be taken as a substitute for the advice given by a professional consultant who is in possession of all of the relevant information.
In this situation my advice and comments cannot be taken as formal professional advice or consultancy.
Paul