Guidance for Use of CSM Recommendation - ERA - Europa
Guidance for Use of CSM Recommendation - ERA - Europa
Guidance for Use of CSM Recommendation - ERA - Europa
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
European Railway Agency<br />
Collection <strong>of</strong> examples <strong>of</strong> risk assessments and <strong>of</strong> some possible tools<br />
supporting the <strong>CSM</strong> Regulation<br />
<br />
(i)<br />
(j)<br />
Manufacturer – Service Provider: <strong>for</strong> example the management by the manufacturer <strong>of</strong><br />
the hazard record when sub-;contracting some work to a company whose size is too<br />
small <strong>for</strong> having a safety organisation on the considered project;<br />
Service Provider – Service Provider: similar example as in point (j) here above;<br />
C.3.2.<br />
C.3.3.<br />
Service providers are covering all activities sub-contracted by either the IM or RU or<br />
manufacturer like maintenance, ticketing, engineering services, etc.<br />
In order to illustrate the interface management and the associated hazard identification, the<br />
following example is given. It considers an interface between a train manufacturer and an<br />
proposer (RU). It describes then how the main criteria requested in point [G 3] <strong>of</strong><br />
section 1.2.1 could be fulfilled:<br />
(a) Leadership: the proposer (RU);<br />
(b) Inputs:<br />
(1) list(s) <strong>of</strong> relevant hazards coming from similar projects;<br />
(2) description <strong>of</strong> all inputs and outputs (I/O) <strong>for</strong> the interface, including the<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance characteristics;<br />
(c) Methods: refer to Appendix A.2 <strong>of</strong> the EN 50 126-2 Guideline {Ref. 9};<br />
(d) Required Participants:<br />
(1) proposer (RU) safety assurance manager;<br />
(1) train manufacturer safety assurance manager;<br />
(2) train proposer design authority;<br />
(3) train manufacturer design authority;<br />
(4) train proposer maintenance staff (partially depending <strong>of</strong> the analysed I/O);<br />
(5) train drivers (partially depending <strong>of</strong> the analysed I/O);<br />
(e) Outputs:<br />
(1) common agreed hazard identification report;<br />
(2) safety measures <strong>for</strong> the hazard record with a clear description <strong>of</strong> the responsibility.<br />
C.4.<br />
C.4.1.<br />
C.4.1.1.<br />
C.4.1.2.<br />
Examples <strong>of</strong> methods <strong>for</strong> determining broadly acceptable risks<br />
Introduction<br />
Broadly acceptable risks are defined in the <strong>CSM</strong> regulation as risks that are "so small that it<br />
is not reasonable to implement any additional safety measure (to reduce the risk further)". In<br />
the hazard identification, classifying some hazards as associated with broadly acceptable<br />
risks allows not to analyse those hazards further in the risk assessment process. The<br />
definition <strong>of</strong> broadly acceptable risks quoted above does leave some room <strong>for</strong> interpretation.<br />
This is why it is indicated in the regulation that the decision <strong>for</strong> classifying hazards with<br />
broadly acceptable risks is left to expert judgment.<br />
It is indeed difficult to define commonly a more explicit criterion <strong>for</strong> broadly acceptable risks<br />
that would apply to all the different possible system levels where such hazards might be<br />
identified, and which also account <strong>for</strong> the different risk aversion factors that may prevail <strong>for</strong><br />
different applications. However, since it is important to ensure that the judgments <strong>of</strong> experts<br />
are easily understood and traceable, some guidance on how to define risks as broadly acceptable<br />
is useful. Criteria <strong>for</strong> defining broadly acceptable risks can be quantitative, qualitative<br />
or semi-qualitative. Below are some examples on how to derive criteria which allows<br />
the evaluation <strong>of</strong> broadly acceptable risks in a quantitative or semi quantitative manner.<br />
<br />
Reference: <strong>ERA</strong>/GUI/02-2008/SAF Version: 1.1 Page 74 <strong>of</strong> 105<br />
File Name: Collection_<strong>of</strong>_RA_Ex_and_some_tools_<strong>for</strong>_<strong>CSM</strong>_V1.1.doc<br />
European Railway Agency ● Boulevard Harpignies, 160 ● BP 20392 ● F-59307 Valenciennes Cedex ● France ● Tel. +33 (0)3 27 09 65 00 ● Fax +33 (0)3 27 33 40 65 ● http://www.era.europa.eu