Risk assessment tools are used by commercial, scientific and governmental entities for a variety of purposes. Even with their widespread use the is still much controversy over their validity and usefulness.

Proponents of Environmental Risk Assessment are often government agencies, the consultants they use, agencies regulated by such entities and political advisors to both.

Is this merely an attempt to shift liability? There is a vast industry of corporate and governmental groups making a good living off such studies.

Critics of ERA's point out the potential for abuse and misuse of such assessments. Some critics liken the process to that of a tortured prisoner. They claim the results will be whatever the sponsors of the study desire. A common criticism being that any result steeped in scientific jargon will retain the credibility of fact.

Consider the case of a large shooting range in the southwestern U.S. This range had requested an ERA when seeking to expand. They arranged for a government agency to perform an ERA and were shocked by the results.

Though the range intended to not only remain in business but expand the assessment was performed to CERCLA standards. This standard was at best inappropriate.

For the purpose of the assessment the range was split into 4 areas: the firing line, the target area, the berm and the downrange (beyond the berm) area.

All these areas are visible in this image of Rio Salada Sportmans Club.

For this study all the areas were assumed to be populated at all times. This is not a valid assumption. The areas users would be exposed to would be the firing line and to a much lesser degree the target area. The only exposure to the berm would be for workers at the range and even then limited to a few hours per month for repair.

Whether intentional or inadvertent the assumptions and errors in such ERAs must be minimized if a tool such as this is to remain viable in the future.