title: Explosion probability of unexploded ordnance: expert beliefs.
abstract: This article reports on a study to quantify expert beliefs about the explosion probability of unexploded ordnance (UXO). Some 1,976 sites at closed military bases in the United States are contaminated with UXO and are slated for cleanup, at an estimated cost of $15-140 billion. Because no available technology can guarantee 100% removal of UXO, information about explosion probability is needed to assess the residual risks of civilian reuse of closed military bases and to make decisions about how much to invest in cleanup. This study elicited probability distributions for the chance of UXO explosion from 25 experts in explosive ordnance disposal, all of whom have had field experience in UXO identification and deactivation. The study considered six different scenarios: three different types of UXO handled in two different ways (one involving children and the other involving construction workers). We also asked the experts to rank by sensitivity to explosion 20 different kinds of UXO found at a case study site at Fort Ord, California. We found that the experts do not agree about the probability of UXO explosion, with significant differences among experts in their mean estimates of explosion probabilities and in the amount of uncertainty that they express in their estimates. In three of the six scenarios, the divergence was so great that the average of all the expert probability distributions was statistically indistinguishable from a uniform (0, 1) distribution-suggesting that the sum of expert opinion provides no information at all about the explosion risk. The experts' opinions on the relative sensitivity to explosion of the 20 UXO items also diverged. The average correlation between rankings of any pair of experts was 0.41, which, statistically, is barely significant (p= 0.049) at the 95% confidence level. Thus, one expert's rankings provide little predictive information about another's rankings. The lack of consensus among experts suggests that empirical studies are needed to better understand the explosion risks of UXO.
authors.affiliation: School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. jmacdona@andrew.cmu.edu
authors.forename: Jacqueline Anne
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: MacDonald
authors.forename: Mitchell J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Small
authors.forename: M G
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Morgan
mesh_terms: D002140:California; D005107:Explosions; D053834:Explosive Agents; D011336:Probability; D018570:Risk Assessment
chemical_list: D053834:Explosive Agents