Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study Committee on Risk Assessment and Management of Marine Systems Marine Board National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1998
OCR for page R2
Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts and Dr. William A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This report represents work supported under provisions of Contract DTMA91-94-G-00003 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Maritime Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation; and Proposal 96-CETS-060-01 from the National Academy of Sciences to the Prince William Sound Risk Assessment Steering Committee. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organization or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number: 0-309-06078-8 Limited copies are available from: Marine Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 Additional copies are available for sale from: National Academy Press Lockbox 285 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20055 1–800–624–6242 or 202–334–3313 http://www.nap.edu Copyright © 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study COMMITTEE ON RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF MARINE SYSTEMS M.ELISABETH PATÉ-CORNELL (chair), NAE, Stanford University, Stanford, California *JOHN F.AHEARNE (vice chair), NAE, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina and Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina CYRIL E.ARNEY, Marathon Oil Company, Houston, Texas KENNETH E.ARNOLD, Paragon Engineering Service, Inc., Houston, Texas *ELIZABETH S.BOUCHARD, The SEALAW Group, Alexandria, Virginia *PHILIP M.DIAMOND, Consultant, Palos Verdes Estates, California MICHAEL J.DONOHOE, Corbett & Holt, Washington, D.C. PAUL S.FISCHBECK, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania B.JOHN GARRICK, NAE, PLG, Inc., Newport Beach, California *MICHAEL J.HERZ, Marine Environmental Scientist, Alna, Maine *PHYLLIS J.KAYTEN, Federal Aviation Administration, Moffett Field, California *EUGENE M.KELLY, Amoco Petroleum Products, Chicago, Illinois *THOMAS M.LESCHINE, University of Washington, Seattle CHARLES D.MASSEY, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico *ROBERT A.SANTOS, Hvide Marine, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida BERNHARD STAHL, Amoco Corporation, Houston, Texas Liaisons of Sponsoring Agencies MARK I.HUTTON, Prince William Sound Risk Assessment Steering Committee, Cooper Landing, Alaska (until December 1996) ALEXANDER C.LANDSBURG, Maritime Administration, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM H.MOORE, American Bureau of Shipping, New York, New York DANIEL T.PIPPENGER, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. DOUGLAS L.SLITOR, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, Virginia ROBERT L.STOLTENBERG, Prince William Sound Risk Assessment Steering Committee, Anchorage, Alaska (from December 1996) FRANK S.WOOD, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. Marine Board Liaison E.G. (“SKIP”) WARD, Shell Offshore, Inc., Houston, Texas Marine Board Staff SUSAN GARBINI, Senior Staff Officer (from December 1997) BEVERLY M.HUEY, Senior Staff Officer (until November 1997) ROBERT A.SIELSKI, Senior Staff Officer (until September 1997) THERESA M.FISHER, Administrative Assistant DONNA A.M.HENRY, Project Assistant (from January 1998) * Member of the Panel on Prince William Sound.
OCR for page R4
Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study MARINE BOARD JAMES M.COLEMAN (chair), NAE, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge JERRY A.ASPLAND (vice chair), California Maritime Academy, Vallejo BERNHARD J.ABRAHAMSSON, University of Wisconsin, Superior BROCK B.BERNSTEIN, EcoAnalysis, Ojai, California LILLIAN C.BORRONE, NAE, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey SARAH CHASIS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., New York, New York CHRYSSOSTOMOS CHRYSSOSTOMIDIS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge BILIANA CICIN-SAIN, University of Delaware, Newark BILLY L.EDGE, Texas A&M University, College Station JOHN W.FARRINGTON, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts MARTHA GRABOWSKI, LeMoyne College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cazenovia, New York JAMES D.MURFF, Exxon Production Research Co., Houston, Texas M.ELISABETH PATÉ-CORNELL, NAE, Stanford University, Stanford, California DONALD W.PRTTCHARD, NAE, State University of New York at Stony Brook STEVEN T.SCALZO, Foss Maritime Company, Seattle, Washington MALCOLM L.SPAULDING, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett ROD VULOVIC, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina E.G. “SKIP” WARD, Shell Offshore, Inc., Houston, Texas Staff PETER JOHNSON, Acting Director SUSAN GARBINI, Senior Staff Officer DANA CAINES, Financial Associate THERESA M.FISHER, Administrative Assistant
OCR for page R5
Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study Preface BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY In 1995, shipping companies operating in the Prince William Sound, Alaska, joined with the Regional Citizens Advisory Council, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and the United States Coast Guard to form the Prince William Sound (PWS) Steering Committee, to oversee a study to determine risks associated with shipping oil in the Prince William Sound and the effectiveness and benefits of existing and proposed prevention measures. The National Research Council (NRC) was asked by the PWS Steering Committee to conduct a peer review of the study. The Marine Board’s Committee on Risk Assessment and Management of Marine Systems established a panel in response to the request from the PWS Steering Committee to evaluate the PWS risk assessment study, to prepare findings regarding the appropriateness and usefulness of the methods and approach of the study, and to determine whether the approach could be directly applied elsewhere. Panel members were selected from the larger committee and were chosen for their relevant expertise and to provide a balance of experience and viewpoints. Although the panel took the lead in preparing the following review, the entire committee reviewed and approved the final report and are the authors of record. (Biographies of committee members are provided in Appendix A; members of the PWS panel are denoted by an asterisk in the Committee List in the front of this report.) The scope of this review is limited to an examination and evaluation of the methods and approach used in the study and their appropriateness for supporting the study’s conclusions and recommendations; it does not analyze whether the results are correct or whether the recommendations are sound. This report is based on a review of the PWS Risk Assessment Study Final Report and supporting technical documents, as well as meetings with and presentations by the PWS Risk Assessment study team.
OCR for page R6
Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to general methods of risk assessment and specific background on the PWS risk assessment study, including the outcome expected by the PWS Steering Committee. Chapter 2 discusses the three methods of risk assessment used by the study team: (1) system simulation based on expert judgments to estimate probabilities, (2) statistical analysis based on the marine accident risk calculation system, and (3) fault tree analysis. Because of the lack of sufficient data, the panel undertook an extensive data gathering process. Chapter 3 discusses that process and the implications of using proprietary data in a public study. Chapter 4 discusses the ability of the process and analytical methods to support the conclusions and recommendations of the study team. Chapter 5 summarizes the NRC committee’s conclusions. Appendix A provides biographical information on committee members. Appendix B describes some methods used in risk assessments. Appendix C provides a discussion of human factors considerations. Appendix D is a discussion of the potential for using some of the innovations from the PWS assessment, especially for assessing the risks of marine transportation, for similar studies in other geographical areas. This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Jerry A.Aspland, California Maritime Academy Robert J.Bruelle, Drexel University Sarah Chasis, Natural Resources Defense Council Robert A.Frosch, Harvard University Roger B.Horne, Jr., Failure Analysis Associates Robert Whitman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joel D.Sipes, U.S. Coast Guard (retired) Malcolm L.Spaulding, University of Rhode Island James D.Wilson, Resources for the Future While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the NRC. The principal audiences for this report are: the PWS Steering Committee which asked for this peer review; the study team that conducted the PWS risk assessment study; and others who might be considering conducting similar studies. The review of the PWS study was originally intended to be part of a larger study of the
OCR for page R7
Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study methods of risk analysis for marine systems, including platforms and ships. Events beyond the control of the committee prevented the completion of the full study. We hope that the content of this review provides useful information to the reader about probabilistic risk analysis methods for marine systems. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell, Chair Committee on Risk Assessment and Management of Marine Systems John F.Ahearne, Chair Panel on Prince William Sound
OCR for page R8
Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R9
Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 7 Prince William Sound Risk Assessment Study, 8 2 MODELS USED IN THE PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND STUDY 10 Marine Accident Risk Calculation System (MARCS), 10 Fault Tree Analyses, 11 Simulations, 12 Analytic Framework, 14 3 DATA COLLECTION AND USE 19 Geographic and Traffic Database, 19 Weather, 20 Visibility, 20 Ice, 20 Incidents/Accidents (Operational) Database, 21 Management Audits, 22 Failure Rate Reporting, 23 Human Error, 23 Questionnaires, 25 General Discussion of the Questionnaires, 28 Use of Expert Judgments, 28 Data-Related Matters, 29
OCR for page R10
Review of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, Risk Assessment Study 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND STUDY 31 Limitations of Recommendations, 34 5 CONCLUSIONS AND GENERAL COMMENTS 36 Stakeholder Participation, 37 Candidate Risk Reduction Measures, 38 Lack of an Overarching Probabilistic Model, 38 Summary Assessment, 40 National Research Council Criteria, 41 Expanded Criteria, 42 Clarity of Presentation, 43 Correlation between the Results and Real Data, 43 REFERENCES 45 APPENDICES A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 49 B Overall Framework of Probabilistic Risk Analysis 53 C Consideration of Human Factors 59 D Applicability of the Prince William Sound Study to Other Areas 61 ACRONYMS 67