## 5 Case Study: LCA Results and Discussion
### Environmental Assessment
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Category**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Unit**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dregs**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scalping**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Loader**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Telescopic**} \\  & & **Transport** & & & & \\  & & **(34 km)** & & & \\ \hline GWP & kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq & \(1.62\times 10^{-2}\) & \(4.52\times 10^{-4}\) & \(2.51\times 10^{-2}\) & \(4.55\times 10^{-2}\) & \(3.59\times 10^{-2}\) \\ ODP & kg CFC\({}^{-11}\) eq & \(2.98\times 10^{-9}\) & \(1.50\times 10^{-11}\) & \(8.32\times 10^{-10}\) & \(8.58\times 10^{-9}\) & \(6.76\times 10^{-9}\) \\ AP & kg SO\({}_{2}\) eq & \(5.53\times 10^{-5}\) & \(3.48\times 10^{-6}\) & \(1.93\times 10^{-4}\) & \(3.55\times 10^{-4}\) & \(2.80\times 10^{-4}\) \\ EP & kg PO\({}_{4}\) eq & \(1.07\times 10^{-5}\) & \(5.92\times 10^{-7}\) & \(3.29\times 10^{-5}\) & \(7.85\times 10^{-5}\) & \(6.18\times 10^{-5}\) \\ POPF & kg NMVOC & \(7.58\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.35\times 10^{-6}\) & \(7.50\times 10^{-5}\) & \(6.59\times 10^{-4}\) & \(5.19\times 10^{-4}\) \\ ADP & kg Sb eq & \(3.64\times 10^{-11}\) & \(4.41\times 10^{-12}\) & \(2.45\times 10^{-10}\) & \(1.41\times 10^{-9}\) & \(1.11\times 10^{-9}\) \\ ADP (fossil & MJ) & \(2.32\times 10^{-1}\) & \(4.20\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.33\times 10^{-1}\) & \(6.68\times 10^{-1}\) & \(5.26\times 10^{-1}\) \\ WU & m\({}^{3}\) & \(8.39\times 10^{-4}\) & \(2.64\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.47\times 10^{-2}\) & \(2.69\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.12\times 10^{-3}\) \\ CED & MJ & \(2.47\times 10^{-1}\) & \(8.64\times 10^{-3}\) & \(4.80\times 10^{-1}\) & \(7.13\times 10^{-1}\) & \(5.62\times 10^{-1}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Environmental impacts for dregs pretreatment in the waste manager. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Category**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Unit**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Bituminous**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Asphalt**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total Impacts**} \\  & & & **Mixture** & & **Pavement** & \\ \hline GWP & kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq & \(5.53\times 10^{-2}\) & \(4.39\) & \(8.16\times 10^{-1}\) & \(5.26\) \\ ODP & kg CFC\({}^{-11}\) eq & \(9.07\times 10^{-9}\) & \(4.23\times 10^{-6}\) & \(1.54\times 10^{-7}\) & \(4.39\times 10^{-6}\) \\ AP & kg SO\({}_{2}\) eq & \(4.02\times 10^{-4}\) & \(3.63\times 10^{-2}\) & \(6.36\times 10^{-3}\) & \(4.31\times 10^{-2}\) \\ EP & kg PO\({}_{4}\) eq & \(1.39\) & \(5.79\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.41\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.40\) \\ POPF & kg NMVOC & \(6.87\times 10^{-4}\) & \(3.49\times 10^{-2}\) & \(1.18\times 10^{-2}\) & \(4.74\times 10^{-2}\) \\ ADP & kg Sb eq & \(1.38\times 10^{-9}\) & \(3.30\times 10^{-7}\) & \(2.52\times 10^{-8}\) & \(3.57\times 10^{-7}\) \\ ADP (fossil & MJ) & \(7.63\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.35\times 10^{2}\) & \(1.20\times 10^{1}\) & \(3.48\times 10^{2}\) \\ fuels) & m\({}^{3}\) & \(2.59\times 10^{-3}\) & \(2.31\) & \(4.82\times 10^{-2}\) & \(2.36\) \\ CED & MJ & \(8.20\times 10^{-1}\) & \(3.66\times 10^{2}\) & \(1.28\times 10^{1}\) & \(3.80\times 10^{2}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Environmental impacts for landfill plus bituminous mixture and total impacts of the reference (linear model) for asphalt pavement. After the pretreatment, dregs and grits are transported from the waste manager to the bituminous mixture plant (30 km) which generates more impacts (Table 12), along with the natural aggregates impacts in the production of bituminous mixtures with and without dregs and grits replacing the crushed limestone. In the circular model, the impacts of bitumen and fuel use (Table 7) as well as the equipment used in the paving work (Table 8) have the same impacts of the linear model. In the filler case, there is also a contribution of 38% to the water use impact, due to water consumption in crushing and screening operation in its production phase, as also observed by other authors [56; 57].