No description available.

During the so-called “Miljonprogrammet”, over a million homes were built in Stockholm. As the buildings mature, parts of the buildings reach their technical life times and it is time to renovate them. At a time when the environmental impact of humans is a hot topic, it is appropriate to take the environment into account when deciding upon which restoration method to use. The sewage pipes are one of the important building parts in need of repair. This can be achieved by for example traditional pipe replacement or Cure-In-Place-Pipes (CIPP-lining).The goal of this study is to investigate and compare the environmental impact of traditional pipe replacement versus the use of the relining method CIPP lining by conducting a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA). The methods differ in the way that traditional pipe replacement demolishes the outer layers of the bathrooms and remove the old pipes to replace with new and restore the surface layers while CIPP-lining renovates the pipes from the inside with the use of a flexible liner.The purpose of the study has been to clarify the differences in environmental impacts of the different methods in a clear and easily understood way and thereby also simplify the decision-making process of property owners in need of renovation.With aid of the guidelines in ISO standards 14040 and 14044 a correct methodology has been used to ensure that the level of this work will be as high as possible. In combination with the software SimaPro specifically developed to handle the creation of various forms of life cycle assessments and the ISO standards a complex system been analyzed in detail.The results of the study show that CIPP-lining generally cause less environmental impacts than the traditional pipe replacement method. The analysis of 14 selected impact categories show that CIPP lining is preferable in 13 categories and that the traditional pipe replacement is preferable in 1 category. The sensitivity analysis show that the results change drastically depending on how much of the materials and energy used to demolish and reconstruct the outer layers of the bathroom one chooses to allocate to the new sewer pipes.The results show that the CIPP-lining results are dependent on the consumables and the liner assembly processes while the energy usage of the production process does not have a large impact on the results. For the traditional pipe replacement the results show that the consumable process is clearly the biggest impact while the piping production inflicts the least impact on the result.