IRSC Vancouver – October 8 th 2013 Anthony Byrne – Railway Safety Commission, Ireland

1. Supervising Safety Managementon Ireland's RailwaysImplementing Commission Regulation (EU) No.1077/2012 the “Common Safety Method for Supervision” IRSC Vancouver – October 8th 2013 Anthony Byrne – Railway Safety Commission, Ireland

2. Presentation Overview • Background • The Common Safety Method for Supervision • The RSC’s supervision of Duty Holders • Enforcement • Lessons learnt

3.  Background

4. Rail Network:

5. Duty Holders (i):

6. Duty Holders (ii):

7. European Legislation (A very brief background): • Risk control measures • Document Control • Distribution of responsibilities • Staff involvement • Ensuring continuous improvement • Qualitative and quantative safety targets • Procedures and methods for managing change • Staff training and competence • Provision for managing safety information • Procedures for accident/incident investigation • Emergency preparedness • Provisions for recurrent internal auditing of the safety management system • Safe operation of the infrastructure • Provision of maintenance & material • European Directive 2004/49/EC (Railway Safety Directive) • Development of CSIs, CSTs and CSMs • Two CSMs for conformity assessment of Safety Management Systems (SMS) • Regulation (EU) No.1158/2010 (RU) • Regulation (EU) No.1169/2010 (IM) • Both came into force December 2010 • Place a requirement on NSAs to assess conformity of SMS prior to issuing safety certificates (to RUs) granting safety authorisation to IM • RSC assessed Irish Rail’s SMSs based on the 19-23 criteria; which include

8. CSM Conformity Assessment: • In 2011 the RSC awarded Irish Rail • Safety Authorisation as an IM • Safety Certificate for its RU activities • The RSC Conformity Assessment (CA) Team supply the Supervision (SUP) Team with ‘findings report’ • SUP team review and incorporate into supervision activities • Post-award supervision commences

9.  CSM for Supervision

10. CSM Supervision & CSM Monitoring : • Two CSMs • Regulation (EU) No. 1077/2012 (NSA) • Regulation (EU) No. 1078/2012 (RUs and IMs) CSM Supervision - defining the activities to be undertaken by the NSA supervision by the NSA of the RUs and IMs to obtain assurance, from the NSA's perspective, about RUs/IMs effectiveness in managing a safe operation and maintenance of the railway system through implementation and compliance with their respective SMS CSM Monitoring – defining the activities to be undertaken by the sector internal monitoring by the RUs and IMs themselves on who, as duty holders, the responsibility for the safe operation of the railways rests

11. CSM Supervision: Contains 9 articles • Article 1 – Subject Matter & Scope • Article 2 – Definitions • Article 3 – Supervision Strategy & plan(s) • Article 4 – Techniques for conducting supervision • Article 5 – Links between assessment and supervision • Article 6 – Competence of persons involved in supervision activities • Article 7 – Decision Making criteria • Article 8 – Coordination and cooperation • Article 9 – Entry into force • Published 16th November 2012; entry into force 7th June 2013 • Requirement on NSA to supervise implementation and compliance • Cognisant of its content, the RSC decided to implement from June 2011 – we now have over two years’ experience

12. Article 3 - Supervision strategy & plan(s): • The supervision strategy is simply what you (the NSA) base your supervision on, i.e., based on risk linked to e.g., train-km perhaps with some KPIs for improved safety over the period. • The supervision plan, (annual and/or lifecycle) would show how it will deliver the supervision strategy during the lifecycle of safety certificate/safety authorisation. • The plan should identify areas for targeted supervision activity on the various sector organisations. • The NSA should use data/information from a variety of sources e.g., CSM CA data, NSA’s own experience, accident reports/recommendations, Annual Reports, complaints from members of the public etc. • NSAs must communicate the plan to the relevant stakeholders

13. Article 4 - Techniques for conducting supervision:

14.  RSC Supervision of Duty Holders

15. A quantative Risk based approach:

16. RSC’s Combined Annual Supervision Programme:

17. Supervision Activities (i): • Audits • SMS Audits undertaken for those with an approved SMS. Cover all CSM criteria of the periodicity of the SC or SA. • Process audits, i.e., are they doing things they way their standards say they should. E.g. Wheelset maintenance, Management of Signaller Competence • Stages include - identify scope, review applicable standards, write protocols (questions), opening meeting, undertake site inspections, conduct interviews, review findings, closing meeting, draft report, issue for comment, revise as necessary, issue final report, follow up meetings. • Process explained in NSA Guidance which is available on our website. • Inspections • Sample asset inspection – Inspectors on-site visually checking asset condition fitness for purpose, e.g., level crossings, bridges, stations, signals, trains etc. (areas of risk – SPAD locations, areas of trespass etc) • Rolling Stock Cab-ride – cover entire network, checking rolling stock, ride quality, asset condition, driver behaviour etc. (provides a good snapshot overview)

18. Supervision Activities (ii): • Meetings • Quarterly SPRM with Director RU et al • Quarterly SPRM with Director IM et al • Quarterly meeting with Chief investigator (RU & IM) • Quarterly meeting with Heads of Safety regarding tracking of NIB recommendations • Executive Meetings between Commissioner and CEOs • Fewer meetings held with industrial and heritage railways • Reactive Supervision • Post Incident Inspections • Public or other representations (complaints)

19. Supervision Activity Outcomes: • Major Non Compliance (MaNC):an area of non-compliance with an IÉ internal, an applicable external standard, or legislation that is evidence of a system failure. • Minor Non Compliance (miNC):an area of non compliance with IÉ internal, an applicable external standard, or legislation that is evidence of a sporadic lapse in implementation of a system or deviation from a system. • Action Required (AR):an area where potential exists for a non compliance to occur unless remedial actions or improvements are made, or an isolated error that requires correction. • Scope for improvement (SFI): an area highlighted where, in the opinion of the Auditor, system or business improvement can be achieved by the company. Typically this is phrased as a recommendation, the merits and implementation of which should be decided by audited organisation. • Good Practice (GP): an area highlighted which, in the opinion of the Auditor, is good practice within the industry. • Audit Trail (AT):an area that the auditor feels should have further attention, either by inclusion in the supervision programme for future audits or by some other means. If non-compliance is identified enforcement powers in accordance with Part 7 of the RSA 2005 are used

20.  Enforcement

21. Principles for supervision: National Safety Authorities are required by EU law to apply the principles of; • Proportionality - in applying the law and securing compliance • Consistency - of approach in its dealings with an RU • Targeting - those activities which a NSA believes give rise to the most serious risks • Prioritisation - to use their resources effectively • Transparency - to help RUs understand what is expected of them • Accountability - for their decisions • Cooperation - arrangements between each other and other bodies

22. Enforcement Hierarchy : Empowers the RSC to apply to the high court for an order restricting or prohibiting an action or omission empowers an RSC inspector, where an immediate and substantial risk exists to the safety of persons to issue a prohibition notice. empowers an RSC inspector, where s/he is of the opinion that either a duty holder or any other person is failing to comply with the RSA 2005, or has failed to comply with an Improvement Plan, to serve an improvement notice empowers an RSC inspector, where there is a risk to safety of persons or is likely to pose danger to persons involved, to require the party involved to submit an improvement plan A proforma where an inspector can identify safety issues to be addressed by the responsible party RSC Enforcement Pyramid

23.  What we’ve learnt !

24. A SWOT Analysis: • We need to get a handle on recommendation tracking • We need to improve the link between assessment & supervision • We need more experience with enforcement • Developing / documenting a competency management system - proving time consuming but worthwhile • Competent resources - Training costly in terms of time but necessary to become self sufficient • Learning from our experiences with supervision and the CSM • Developing our cooperation arrangements with other NSAs • Participating in NSA staff exchanges to promote sharing of knowledge and experience

25. Thank you for your attention