En miljöjämförelse av traditionellt stambyte kontra relining av tappvattenrör : Med hjälp av livscykelanalys

Sammanfattning: This study was a final thesis, for the bachelor program in civil engineering at the University of Uppsala, which was made on behalf of Riksbyggen in Uppsala. A comparative study of two stain renovation methods; tradition pipe replacement and relining was done with an environmental perspective. A simplified life cycle assessment (LCA) was done according to the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) with the LCA tool Eco-indicator 99, in order to be estimate the impact on the environment. LCA is a method that follows a product or a system “from the cradle to the grave”, which means that all the environmental impact over a lifetime is considered. The work was executed by using a stairway with nine apartments in a house called “Uppsala Hus 9” as a reference object, which was provided by Riksbyggen. The house was a typical house from the so-called “Miljonprogram” and was restored with traditionally pipe replacem ent four years earlier. Interviews were done with the companies VBE Byggproduktion AB and Novada that works with traditionally pipe replacement and relining, in order to receive information about material consumption, equipment, transports etcetera for both methods. Where some information was impossible to obtain, assumptions were made. The processes considered within the study were extraction and production of materials, energy use of machines, transports, recycling and waste. The environmental categories that the study estimated were taken from Eco-indicator 99 and the categories were “human health”, “ecosystem quality” and “resources”. The conclusion of the study was that the traditionally pipe replacement had a greater impact on the environment than the relining. This was mainly due to the fact that the production of material with the traditionally pipe replacement was about 950 times larger than with the relining. The transport with the traditionally pipe replacement was about three times bigger than the transport with relining. The result of the v recycling was larger with the traditionally pipe replacement than with the relining which had none recycling at all. The energy use of machines was slightly bigger with relining than with traditionally pipe replacement. Some of the data was unreliable, which required us to make some assumptions. This resulted in some of the values being too high or too low. An example could have been that the use of machines for both of the methods was too high. Meanwhile, it should not affect the result too much, due to the fact that the use of machines for both methods almost cancelled each other out.