ABSTRACT
In this context the criteria additionality is not used for judging the significance of the change like the other five criteria. It can rather be interpreted as an instruction how to consider changes, which were already implemented in the same area as the proposed change and were not significant but safety relevant. Apart from the explanation in Article 4 it does not exist any further guidance in the regulation itself how to apply the criteria and how to judge the significance of a change on the basis of the given criteria. This relates to both the
1 MOTIVATION
As part of the harmonization of the risk assessment process in the area of European railway industry a new concept judges the significance of a change. In our paper we will compare this approach of the so-called CSM-Process with the method applied in case of changes of equipment in NPPs. The similarities and differences between both methods are investigated and it is discussed why the method for judging changes in railways uses both risk-based and qualitative criteria in one method.
