Performance assessment - risk assessment vive la differences

In the sister worlds of radioactive waste management disposal and environmental restoration, there are two similar processes and computational approaches for determining the acceptability of the proposed activities. While similar, these two techniques can lead to confusion and misunderstanding if the differences are not recognized and appreciated. In the case of radioactive waste management, the performance assessment process is used to determine compliance with certain prescribed 'performance objectives'. These objectives are designed to ensure that the disposal of radioactive (high-level, low-level, and/or transuranic) waste will be protective of human health and the environment. The environmental link is primarily through assuring protection of the groundwater as a resource. In the case of environmental restoration, the risk assessment process is used to determine the proper remedial action response, if any, for a past hazardous waste release. The process compares the 'no action' or 'leave as is' option with both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic values for human health to determine the need for any action and to help to help determine just what the appropriate action would need to be. The impacts to the ecological system are evaluated in a slightly, different but similar fashion. Now the common objectives between these two processes notwithstanding. There are some key and fundamental differences that need to be answered that make direct comparisons or a common approach inappropriate. Failure to recognize this can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. This can be particularly problematic when one is faced with an active disposal facility located within the boundaries of an environmental restoration site as is the case at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). Through a critical evaluation of the performance assessment and risk assessment processes, highlighting both similarities and differences, it is hoped that greater understanding and appreciation of these two approaches will be had by regulators, analysts, and the public alike