## 5 Case Study--LCA Results and Discussion  
### Environmental Assessment  
In the linear model, the waste is transported from the pulp and paper manufacturing facilities to the landfill (at 1.5 km). Then, in the landfill stage, there is a set of impacts resulting from the excavation work (hydraulic digger (HD) and waste movement (skid-steer loader (SSL)), as well as the waste deposition in landfill. Table 3 shows the impacts generated in the disposal of waste in landfill, according to the functional unit of the column (1 m\({}^{3}\) of concrete). This concrete formulation uses 104 kg of filler per m\({}^{3}\) of concrete, thus the impacts of the waste in landfill are in accordance with the amount of filler used or saved in the concrete, considering that the substitution ratio lime ash waste to natural filler is 1:1. Regarding the production of concrete in the linear model, there are impacts associated with the use of raw materials (gravel and sand) (Table 4), as well as other raw materials such as filer, superplasticiser, water, cement and the transport of natural filler from the producer to the precast concrete producer (82 km) (Table 5). The impacts of precast concrete production (Tables 4 and 5) result mainly from the use of cement, except in the water use (WU) and abiotic depletion potential (ADP) categories, which result from the use of coarse sand and superplasticiser, respectively. Cement contributes between 66% and 88% to the environmental impacts of concrete production, in the categories of global warming (GWP100), ozone layer depletion (ODP), acidification (AP), eutrophication (EP), photochemical oxidant formation (POFP), abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) and cumulative energy demand (CED). This contribution results from the production of an intermediate product (clinker) that consumes large amounts of raw materials (limestone, clay, gypsum, iron ore, bauxite, etc.) and fossil energy [29]. In the case of sands, these contribute approximately 60% of the impact of water use, due to the consumption of water in the step of washing this raw material, during the sand extraction phase [3]. On the other hand, plasticiser and cement generate 82% and 10% of the impacts of abiotic depletion potential (ADP-elements) for non-fossil resources, respectively. Table 6 shows the impacts generated in the production of precast concrete and the deposition of lime ash in landfill (linear model). The impacts of the linear model (Table 6) resulted mainly from the production of concrete, except in the eutrophication category, which was impacted by the deposition of lime ash in landfill. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Category**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Unit**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Transport (1.5 km)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Excavation (HD)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Movement of**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Landfilling**} \\  & & & & **Wastes (SSL)** & \\ \hline GWP & kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq & \(2.14\times 10^{-2}\) & \(4.99\times 10^{-2}\) & \(5.00\times 10^{-2}\) & \(3.06\times 10^{-1}\) \\ ODP & kg CFC\({}^{-11}\) eq & \(3.98\times 10^{-9}\) & \(9.40\times 10^{-9}\) & \(9.36\times 10^{-9}\) & \(4.74\times 10^{-8}\) \\ AP & kg SO\({}_{2}\) eq & \(7.54\times 10^{-5}\) & \(3.88\times 10^{-4}\) & \(3.88\times 10^{-4}\) & \(2.26\times 10^{-3}\) \\ EP & kg PC\({}_{4}\)\({}^{-}\) eq & \(1.47\times 10^{-5}\) & \(8.61\times 10^{-5}\) & \(8.62\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.08\times 10\) \\ POPFP & kg NMVOC & \(1.04\times 10^{-4}\) & \(7.21\times 10^{-4}\) & \(7.22\times 10^{-4}\) & \(3.76\times 10^{-3}\) \\ ADP & kg Sb eq & \(4.87\times 10^{-11}\) & \(1.36\times 10^{-9}\) & \(1.61\times 10^{-9}\) & \(7.66\times 10^{-9}\) \\ ADP (fossil fuels) & MJ & \(3.09\times 10^{-1}\) & \(7.29\times 10^{-1}\) & \(7.27\times 10^{-1}\) & \(4.13\) \\ WU & m\({}^{3}\) & \(1.12\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.57\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.58\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.57\times 10^{-2}\) \\ CED & MJ & \(3.31\times 10^{-1}\) & \(7.79\times 10^{-1}\) & \(7.77\times 10^{-1}\) & \(4.45\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}