There is ample evidence supporting the need for improved Risk Analysis but the problem is not simply teaching new methods to more people. One of the major problems is that most applied risk assessment related to federal regulations has been influenced by the EPA deliberate conservative bias in the data bases. How, this deliberate and confusing bias can be confused with "best science" is difficult to understand. The question becomes: Is EPA, an agency with invested interest in and a willingness to bias both data and conclusions, the proper agency to mete out funds for National Centers for Risk Analysis? What assurance does the public have that this will not lead to EPA's complete control of Risk Assessment?

The following experiences on the Oak Ridge Reservation with EPA-controlled, DOE Risk Assessment is one basis, among many others, for these concerns about EPA's objectivity. The experience is practical in that it has involved several DOE ORR remediation projects costing in the millions of dollars and up. The references are to prior pages on several topics each stemming from the ORR.

• The Saga of LEFPC - A Large Superfund Site in Residential Oak Ridge
• The NCEDR Conference - Why EPA's Model Is Technically Wrong
• EPA's Conservatism in the Face of Uncertainty - It's NOT Appropriate
• EPA's New Policy on Monte Carlo Methods - Why It's Inadequate
• Two Postings from the RiskAnal Server - Supporting Opinion
• References to EPA's Conservatism - Many, Diverse Sources