Life Cycle Assessments for Waste, Part III: The Case of Paint Packaging Separation and General Conclusions

Abstract

This is the final paper of a series of three on the use of LCA in a strategic EIA made for the second Dutch National Hazardous Waste Management Plan (NHWMP). A comparison of two options for paint packaging waste separation is given: cryogenic versus shredder-flush separation. The high liquid nitrogen use in the cryogenic process, and particularly the energy needed to produce it, tends to make the cryogenic process environmentally less favourable. As for the other technology comparisons in the EIA, no particular problems arose. The EIA passed its peer review successfully and survived a very extensive public review procedure, in spite of the fact that it supported decisions involving very high financial stakes. Several lessons can be learned from this experience. First, LCA is a suitable tool in strategic EIAs on waste. Second, time-consuming, interactive public participation in LCA is no precondition for public acceptance — a process ofstakeholder deliberation that ensures that the practitioner knows the relevant perspective is enough. Third, high decision stakes do not automatically demand very extensive LCA work. Our experience shows that LCAs just above screening level can provide robust support to decisions involving dozens of million Euros. More extensive work would not have lead to more specified preferences. Rather, in our view, being well aware of the key discussion points in advance which are seen as relevant for the comparison by stakeholders, and having good insight in the related inherent limits of LCA, is the key to optimal decision support with LCA.