The Prince William Sound Risk Assessment

References

• Andrews S., Murphy F. H., Wang X. P., Welch S. Modeling crude oil lightering in Delaware Bay. Interfaces (1996) 26(6):68–78Link, Google Scholar
• Banks J., Carson J. S., Nelson B. L., Nicol D. M.Discrete-Event System Simulation (2000) (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Bedford T. M., Cooke R. M.Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Method (2001) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bradley R., Terry M. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. Biometrica (1952) 39:324–345Google Scholar
• Busenberg G. Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy. Policy Sci. (1999) 32(1):1–11Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busenberg G. Innovation, learning, and policy evolution in hazardous systems. Amer. Behavioral Sci. (2000) 44(4):1–11Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charnley G.Enhancing the Role of Science in Stakeholders-Based Risk Management Decision-Making (2000) (HealthRisk Strategies, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• Cooke R. M.Experts in Uncertainty: Expert Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science (1991) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K) Google Scholar
• Fowler T. G., Sorgard E. Modeling ship transportation risk. Risk Anal. (2000) 20(2):225–244Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garrick G. J. Recent case studies and advancements in probabilistic risk assessment. Risk Anal. (1984) 4(4):267–279Crossref, Google Scholar
• Golkar J., Shekhar A., Buddhavarapu S., Medeiros D. J., Watson E. F., Carson J. S., Manivannan M. S. Panama Canal simulation model. Proc. 1998 Winter Simulation Conf. (1998) 1229–1237Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guedes Soares C., Teixeira A. P. Risk assessment in maritime transportation. Reliability Engrg. System Safety (2001) 74(3):299–309Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hara K., Nakamura S. A comprehensive assessment system for the maritime traffic environment. Safety Sci. (1995) 19(2–3):203–215Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrald J., Marcus H., Wallace W. The Exxon Valdez: An assessment of crisis prevention and management systems. Interfaces (1990) 20(5):14–30Link, Google Scholar
• Harrald J., Mazzuchi T., Merrick J., van Dorp R., Spahn J. Using system simulation to model the impact of human error in a maritime system. Safety Sci. (1998) 30(1–2):235–247Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kite-Powell H. L., Jin D., Patrikalis N. M., Jebsen J., Papakon-stantinou V. Formulation of a model for ship transit risk. (1996) 96–119MIT Sea Grant Technical Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Lowrance W. W.Of Acceptable Risk (1976) (William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA) Google Scholar
• Maio D., Ricci R., Rossetti M., Schwenk J., Liu T. Port needs study. (1991) . Report No. DOT-CG-N-01-91-1.2. Prepared by John A. Volpe, National Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• Merrick J., van Dorp J. R., Harrald J., Mazzuchi T., Spahn J., Grabowski M. A systems approach to managing oil transportation risk in Prince William Sound. Systems Engrg. (2000) 3(3):128–142Crossref, Google Scholar
• National Research CouncilCrew Size and Maritime Safety (1986) (National Academy Press, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• National Research CouncilTanker Spills: Prevention by Design (1991) (National Academy Press, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• National Research CouncilMinding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting (1994) (National Academy Press, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• National Research CouncilRisk Management in the Marine Transportation System (2000) (National Academy Press, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• Paté-Cornell M. E. Organizational aspects of engineering system safety: The case of offshore platforms. Science (1990) 250(4985):1210–1217Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paté-Cornell M. E. Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment. Reliability Engrg. System Safety (1996) 54(2–3):95–111Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pravda M. F., Lightner R. G. Conceptual study of a supercritical reactor plant for merchant ships. Marine Tech. (1966) 4:230–238Google Scholar
• Prince William Sound Steering Committee (1996) . Prince William Sound risk assessment study final reportGoogle Scholar
• Roeleven D., Kok M., Stipdonk H. L., de Vries W. A. Inland waterway transport: Modeling the probabilities of accidents. Safety Sci. (1995) 19(2–3):191–202Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryan N. K., Medeiros D. J., Watson E. F., Carson J. S., Manivannan M. S. The future of maritime facility designs and operations. Proc. 1998 Winter Simulation Conf. (1998) 1223–1227Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saaty T. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psych. (1977) 15(3):234–281Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slob W. Determination of risks on inland waterways. J. Hazardous Materials (1998) 61(1–3):363–370Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal. (1993) 13(6):675–682Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stiehl G. L. Prospects for shipping liquefied natural gas. Marine Tech. (1977) 14(4):351–378Google Scholar
• Trbojevic V. M., Carr B. J. Risk based methodology for safety improvements in ports. J. Hazardous Materials (2000) 71(1–3):467–480Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Coast Guard Vessel traffic systems: Analysis of port needs. (1973) . Report No. AD-770 710. U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor safety study: An assessment of accident risks in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. (1975) . WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014)Google Scholar
• Wang J. A subjective modeling tool applied to formal ship safety assessment. Ocean Engrg. (2000) 27(10):1019–1035Crossref, Google Scholar