BOOK REVIEW

J. R. Gronow, A. N. Schofield, and R. K. Jain (eds.), Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste: Engineering and Environmental Issues, Ellis H o r w o o d Limited, 1988, 311 pp., s The 27 papers contained in this book were given at a workshop held at the University o f Cambridge in Autumn 1987. For publication they have been grouped into 5 sections: Introduction; Monitoring o f Pollution Migration; Risk Assessment and Modelling; Remedial Action and Case Histories; and Design for the Future. Too detailed a knowledge o f the subject matter o f such conferences as this can be a disadvantage for the reviewer, since it leads him to concentrate first on those areas where his personal experience suggests that the greatest problems lie. In this case, it is the sections on risk assessment and future designs. The conclusion after reading those sections can only be that much scope remains for further research on these matters. In the first o f these two sections, Clark and Frizelle estimate the probability o f a mistake in the determination o f a planning application under the current UK system o f controls as approximately 1 in 100, whilst that of a failure of planning control due to a mistake (for example, loss o f or failure to consult records) occurring within 300 years of the closure of an 0.5 km 2 landfdl site is estimated at 98.5~ The apparently small probability of the former estimate contrasts strikingly with the near - certainty of failure implied by the latter. Three centuries is admittedly a very long time in relation to the design life o f most buildings; much can go wrong in that time but for a former disposal site it may not take anything like 300 years. If their estimates are based upon planning applications where adequate information on the ground conditions is available to, and taken into account by, the planning authority, how much greater will the risk be when this is not the case? Preliminary evidence o f the working o f the Department of the Environment's Circular on the Development o f Contaminated Land (DOE 21/87 WO 22/87, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office) suggests that neither developers nor planning authorities have yet heeded the warning to take contamination into account before making or deciding their applications. Evidence which might enable the authors to refine their estimates may not be long in coming. In the section on Future Design, Chapman and Williams pose some pertinent questions concerning the 'double standards' which have been allowed to develop between the disposal arrangements for different categories o f waste. The lavishness o f UK research funding on the behaviour and disposal of radioactive waste does indeed contrast sharply with the quite inadequate provision made for hazardous waste research, beside which almost any programme would appear lavish. Yet despite the funds committed to radioactive waste research, doubts about its safe disposal have still not been answered to the satisfaction o f the general public; that same public has, apparently, failed to become quite so inordinately alarmed about the arrangeEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment 13: 99-100, 1989.

100

BOOK REVIEW

ments which exist for disposing of relatively 'low-profile' waste such as domestic refuse in a supposedly safe and secure fashion. In the same section, the papers by Schoenberger (USA) and Stegmann (West Germany) highlight the doubts being expressed in their countries about the long-term future of landfill as a disposal option for hazardous waste. In neither country does there appear to be substantial confidence in the method, though their reasons differ. They do, however, seem to be agreed that containment may not after all be the best option, except under special conditions. In the UK these would be regarded as long-term storage rather than as disposal, and for that reason would not be favoured. The concentration of research effort on the better-known of the possible environmental consequences of landfill disposal (pollution of soil, groundwater and other media) is reflected in the papers presented in other sections of the book. In this reviewer's opinion this concentration has tended to obscure the real importance of other factors which have contributed to the lessening of confidence in landfill disposal. In the UK, these factors include the relatively recent introduction of adequate legislation, which frequently still needs 'fine tuning' to operate properly, and the deficiences in supervision and enforcement of that legislation by the competent authorities. The evidence from various sources suggests very strongly that Central Governments should be prepared to take a strong line with those responsible for regulating the actual disposal sites. The book would have benefited from an authoritative concluding chapter which drew upon the material presented in the various papers and set out clearly what remains to be done. In its absence, it is not convincing. For an impression of the current state of knowledge and of ideas still in the melting pot, these papers are as good as a source of up to date material as any. Potential readers will therefore need first to decide into which of these categories their main interest lies before acquiring the book.

Department o f the Environment R m A224 Romney House 43 Marsham St, London, UK

M. J. BECKETT