Please cite this article in press as: Loss, A., et al., LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water pipelines. Resour Conserv Recy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model RECYCL-3322; No. of Pages 12 Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Resources, Conservation and Recycling jo ur nal home p age: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec Full length article LCA comparison of traditional open cut and pipe bursting systems for relining water pipelines Andrea Loss, Sara Toniolo, Anna Mazzi, Alessandro Manzardo, Antonio Scipioni ∗ CESQA University of Padua, Department of Industrial Engineering, Via Marzolo 9, 35131 Padua, Italy a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 24 March 2016 Received in revised form 28 June 2016 Accepted 1 August 2016 Available online xxx Keywords: Water pipeline relining Life cycle assessment Pipe bursting Trenchless Urban infrastructures Urban area Asbestos cement a b s t r a c t Water supply pipelines in urban areas need to be relined every few decades. Recently, new trenchless technologies have emerged that are more cost-effective than traditional open cut systems. Among the new technologies, the pipe bursting technique has been used the most. A life cycle assessment (LCA) environmental impact analysis has not yet been performed to compare the traditional relining system and the no-dig techniques. This paper presents a comparative LCA of the traditional and the pipe bursting relining systems. The analysis considered two different pipes diameters (DN200 mm and DN500 mm) and two different pipe materials that must be replaced (asbestos cement and pig iron). To determine the eco-profile of the alternatives, the ReCiPe 2008 H/H Europe impact assessment method was applied and integrated with three new inventory indicators related to asbestos and pig iron dispersion in the air and soil to overcome the lack of specific impact assessment methods. The results demonstrate that the pipe bursting technology generates lower environmental impacts in most of the impact categories. The gap between the environmental performances of the two technologies increases with increasing diameter of the replaced pipe. For the same pipe diameter, the impacts are higher for the asbestos cement pipe than the pig iron pipe for both relining systems. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In many developed countries, the engineered urban water supply infrastructure is in crisis due to various factors, such as increasing urban populations and insufficient attention to main- tenance and replacement planning (VanBriesen et al., 2014). Moreover, many parts of the distribution systems are near their end of life. Infrastructure reinvestment is inevitable and requires critical decisions about the operations and processes that can be applied to the technological renovation of urban infrastructure (VanBriesen et al., 2014). Traditionally, underground pipe rehabilitation was accomplished using an open cut method in which the old pipe is totally removed and replaced with new pipe. This technique has generally adverse impacts on the daily life and activities of peo- ple and businesses around the rehabilitation project (Lueke and Ariaratnam, 2001; Rameil, 2007); these adverse impacts include breaking of the road paving (Fröling and Svanström, 2005), road closures, traffic delays (Rameil, 2007; Chirulli, 2011), loss of access to businesses and homes and undesirable noise and sight pollu- tion (Rameil, 2007). Furthermore, with urbanization, underground ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: scipioni@unipd.it (A. Scipioni). congestion has increased, making traditional open cut construction interventions more expensive and even impossible in some situa- tions (Lueke and Ariaratnam, 2001). For these reasons, to face the new challenges related to relining the urban pipeline network, new technology solutions have been born in the last 20 years. In this specific sector, the new trenchless solutions have become a popu- lar and viable alternative to the traditional relining system (Lueke and Ariaratnam, 2001). One of the most common technologies for relining old pipe is the pipe bursting system (Zaneldin, 2007; Bennett et al., 2011; Ariaratnam, 2011 and Ariaratnem et al., 2014), especially because this system reduces the excavation process and simultaneously allows the installation of larger diameter pipes, increasing the water pipeline capacity and addressing increased urban water consumption. In fact, this technique permits replacing a portion of tubing through the creation of two pits: the traction pit and the insertion pit. The new pipe is anchored to the burst- ing head that is pulled through the host pipe from the insertion pit to the traction pit. The old pipe is broken into fragments that remain in the soil (Simicevic and Sterling, 2001; ISTT, 2011; Chirulli, 2011). The comparison and analysis of the advantages and disad- vantages between the traditional and the pipe bursting relining systems have been fully explored economically and logistically (Lueke and Ariaratnam, 2001; Rameil, 2007; Chirulli, 2011) but not environmentally (Bottero and Peila, 2005). In fact, the no-dig http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.001 0921-3449/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.