Guidance for Use of CSM Recommendation - ERA - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

European Railway Agency Collection of examples of risk assessments and of some possible tools supporting the CSM Regulation C.5.3. C.5.4. A branch of the infrastructure manager organisation, that was performing until the change some maintenance activities (other than signalling and telematic), had to be put in competition with other companies working in the same field. The direct impact was a need for downsizing and redistribution of staff and tasks within the detached branch of the IM organisation put in competition. Concerns for the impacted infrastructure manager: (a) the IM staff affected by the change was in charge of emergency maintenance and repairs required by sudden errors on the infrastructure. Staff was also performing some planned or project based maintenance activities such as track packing, ballast cleaning, vegetation control; (b) these tasks were considered critical for the safety and punctuality of the operation. They had thus to be analysed in order to find the right measures which ensure that the situation does not deteriorate as many of the people in charge of safety matters are leaving the IM organisation. (c) the same level of safety and train punctuality need to be maintained during and after the change of the organisation. C.5.5. In comparison to the CSM process, the following steps were applied (see also Figure 1): (a) system description [section 2.1.2]: (1) description of the tasks performed by the existing organisation (i.e. by the IM organisation before the change); (2) description of the changes planned in the IM organisation. (3) the interfaces of the "branch to be detached" with other surrounding organisations or with the physical environment could only be briefly described. The boundaries could not be 100 % clearly presented; (b) hazard identification [section 2.2]: (1) brainstorming by group of experts: (i) to find all hazards, with a relevant influence on risk brought on by the intended organisational change; (ii) to identify possible actions to control the risk; (2) hazard classification: (i) in function of the severity of the associated risk: high, medium, low risk; (ii) in function of the impact of the change: increased, unchanged, decreased risk; (c) use of a reference system [section 2.4]: The system before the change was judged to have an acceptable level of safety. It was thus used as "reference system" to derive the risk acceptance criteria (RAC) for the change of organisation; (d) explicit risk estimation and evaluation [section 2.5]: For each hazard with increased risk due to the change of organisation, risk reduction measures are identified. The residual risk is compared against RAC from the reference system to check whether additional measures need to be identified; (e) demonstration of the system compliance with safety requirements [section 3]: (1) the risk analysis and hazard record shown that hazards cannot be controlled until they are verified and until it is demonstrated that the safety requirements (i.e. selected safety measures) are implemented; (2) the risk analysis and hazard record were living documents. The efficiency of the decided actions was monitored at regular intervals in order to check if the Reference: ERA/GUI/02-2008/SAF Version: 1.1 Page 76 of 105 File Name: Collection_of_RA_Ex_and_some_tools_for_CSM_V1.1.doc 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
European Railway Agency Collection of examples of risk assessments and of some possible tools supporting the CSM Regulation conditions were changed and if the risk analysis and risk evaluation need to be updated; (3) if the implemented measures were not enough efficient, the risk analysis, risk evaluation and hazard record were updated and monitored again; (f) hazard management [section 4.1]: The identified hazards and safety measures were registered and managed in a hazard record. One of the conclusions of the example was to continuously update the risk analysis and the hazard record as decisions and actions were taken during the change of the organisation. The risk at interfaces with for example sub-contractors and entrepreneurs were also covered by the risk analysis. The structure and fields used for the hazard record, as well as an extract of some lines, are given in section C.16.2. of Appendix C. (g) independent assessment [Article 6]: An independent assessment by a third party was also carried out in order: (1) to check that the risk management and risk assessment were correctly done; (2) to check that the organisational change is suitable and will enable to maintain the same level of safety as before the change. C.5.6. The example shows that the principles required by the common safety method are existing methods in the railway sector already applied for assessing the risks for organisational changes. The risk assessment in the example fulfils all the requirements from the CSM. It uses two out of three risk acceptance principles allowed by the harmonised approach of the CSM: (a) a "reference system" is applied to determine the risk acceptance criteria necessary for evaluating the risk acceptance of the organisational change; (b) "explicit risk estimation and evaluation": (1) to analyse the deviations of the change from the reference system; (2) to identify risk reduction measures for increased risk arising from the change; (3) to evaluate whether an acceptable level of risk is reached. C.6. Risk assessment example of an operational significant change – Change of driving hours C.6.1. C.6.2. Remark: this example of risk assessment was not produced as a result of the application of the CSM process; it was carried out before the existence of CSM. The purpose of the example is: (a) to identify the similarities between the existing risk assessment methods and the CSM process; (b) to give traceability between the existing process and the one requested by the CSM; (c) to provide justification of the added value of performing the additional steps (if any) required by the CSM. It must be stressed that this example is given for information only. Its purpose is to help the reader understanding the CSM process. But the example itself shall not be transposed to or used as a reference system for another significant change. The risk assessment shall be carried out for each significant change in compliance with the CSM Regulation. The example is an operational change where the railway undertaking wanted to assign new routes and potentially new working hours (including rotations and shift patterns) to the drivers Reference: ERA/GUI/02-2008/SAF Version: 1.1 Page 77 of 105 File Name: Collection_of_RA_Ex_and_some_tools_for_CSM_V1.1.doc 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
Page 1 and 2:
European Railway Agency Collection
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT System Defin
Page 25 and 26: European Railway Agency Collection
Page 33 and 34: BOX 1 BOX 2 European Railway Agency
Page 75: European Railway Agency Collection
Page 105: European Railway Agency Collection
show all

Guidance for Use of CSM Recommendation - ERA - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?