Ancharski !

IES Abroad Vienna

Waste Management in Boston and Vienna

A Comparison of Waste Treatment Processes in Boston and Vienna

Conor Ancharski
VIEN-PO 235-02 In Search of Sustainability: Energy, the Environment, and Society in Central
Europe
Professor Nadja Schmidt
17 May 2019
 Ancharski !2

Index

1 - Cover Page
2 - Index
3 - Introduction
4 - Materials Consulted, Recycling in Boston
5 - Single Stream Recycling
6 - Source Separated Recycling, Vienna Statistics
7 - Boston Statistics
8 - Sustainable Consumer Choices in Boston and Vienna
9 - Vienna Incineration and Composting
10 - Boston Incineration, Suggested Solutions for Boston
11 - Current Problems and Suggested Solutions for Vienna
12 - Concluding Remarks
13 - Works Cited
 Ancharski !3

Recycling is a fairly modern concept in terms of the large scale operations that it ensues
today. Prior to last few decades, a scarcity of materials for others made personal reusing of
materials a necessary act. During times of social conflict as recent as the Great Depression and
the Second World War people were encouraged to reuse scrap metal, boxes, and cloth for things
such as lunch boxes and clothing. However, this would soon change dramatically. “What
happened in the 1960s and ‘70s wasn’t that recycling was invented, but that the reasons for it
changed. Rather than recycle in order to get the most out of the materials, Americans began to
recycle in order to deal with the massive amounts of waste produced during the second half of
the 20th century” (Waxman). Different cities responded in various ways to this rising issue of
increased waste at the hands of rapid industrialization making it easier and easier to purchase
disposable goods. One general commonality was the introduction of widespread recycling
programs, beginning mostly around the 1970s, a big decade for environmental awareness with
things such as the first Earth Day and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency
taking place. (Waxman)
In this essay, I will examine the recycling programs of two very different cities: Vienna,
Austria and Boston, United States, providing insights as to how each can improve moving into
the future. I will look at how each program began, and how each runs today, comparing and
contrasting both cities in how they manage both similar and different problems. I will look also
at how the public deals with the perception of recycling in each city, and how waste is disposed
of by the average person. I will then suggest how each city may seek to improve.
However, I will not look too much into the production of products prior to disposal, as
well as specific consumer choices that ought to be made when attempting to live a sustainable
lifestyle. I will additionally not look much into the disposal of waste from commercial sources,
and will instead look mostly at waste picked up from households and community pickup points
instead. I will also not look into what happens to recyclables such as paper, plastic, and
aluminum in their journey past collection and sale to other companies as raw materials. Rather, I
will devote most of the essay towards the waste system, designed and funded through the
government, focusing on how it functions and how it can be improved.
 Ancharski !4

In terms of the materials consulted for this essay, I will attempt to use as many statistics
and hard facts as possible, steering clear of any source that appears to have clear biases. I will
use things such as census counts and total reports of waste consumption as reported by those who
do the collections. I will also use sources that describe the infrastructure currently in place in
each city in order to tackle the rising challenge of dealing with waste in the most sustainable way
possible. Through official websites, I will see what types of recycling citizens of these cities
partake in, and what materials they are permitted to dispose of in any such manner. When it
comes to topics that have multiple viewpoints (such as the topic of single stream versus source
separated recycling), I will attempt to consult sources that examine both sides of the argument,
even if those presenting such information may be biased themselves.
Boston, like many other US cities, began most of its recycling in the 1970s. The city
operates through a single stream recycling program, which collects trash and recyclables in
separate bins weekly and sorts through the recyclables after collection. With the recycling
program, the following items are listed online as being able to be recycled: pizza boxes, plastic,
paper, books, glass, cans, spiral cans, cardboard, and boxboard. However, it also lists plastic
bags, electronics, drink and food boxes, medical waste, plastic wraps, tanglers (which refers to
hoses, wires, and chains), single-use items, containers for chemical and motor oil, and clothes as
being unable to be recycled. In the case of plastic bags, it is mentioned that many stores collect
these materials and are able to recycle them on an individual basis. However, the city of Boston
itself is unable to recycle the bags themself. Additionally, in the cases of electronics and
containers for chemicals and motor oils, the website mentions that they hold events throughout
the year for collection of such materials. (Recycling in Boston) In looking into these dropoffs
scheduled throughout the year, we can see that conventional materials such as computers,
monitors, printers, batteries, washing machines, and dryers are accepted, while other equipment
such as televisions, air conditioners, and refrigerators are not accepted (although a scheduled
pickup can be made for these materials). (Recycling Household Electronics) In the case of
containers for chemicals and motor oils, the website leading from it details a number of
hazardous materials that can be dropped off during these designated days, mostly including
cleaning supplies and car-related materials such as antifreeze, brake fluid, oil, and car batteries.
 Ancharski !5

Also stated as available during the events are clothing collections and the previously mentioned
electronic material dropoffs. (Get Rid of Household Hazardous Waste) Additionally, it is
mentioned that these dropoffs are specifically intended for disposal coming from households,
rather than commercial sources, who likely are tasked with finding their own means of waste
disposal. (Recycling Household Electronics)
Perhaps the biggest difference between the cities of Vienna and Boston in terms of waste
management and recycling is that Boston uses a single stream recycling program (Recycling in
Boston) while Vienna uses a source separated system. (Waste Management in Vienna) In a single
stream recycling program, the consumer combines anything that is deemed recyclable by the
department of their state responsible for recycling as able to be recycled. They put everything
into two bins: one of recyclables and one of non-recyclables. The recycled goods are then
collected and sorted in a separate facility. There are several reasons for adopting such a practice.
“The impetus for adopting single-stream was twofold: a belief that the added convenience of not
needing to sort would entice more residents to participate in their curbside programs, and the
desire to save money by reduced collection costs. While collection costs are lower with a single
stream system, processing costs are much higher” (Single Stream Recycling). In fact, according
to J. Poyry and Skumatz Economic Research Associates, single stream recycling costs three
dollars more than dual stream stream recycling on average. In dual stream, typical beverage
containers such as plastic and aluminum are separated from paper products, therefore creating
three total containers left out weekly for collection. The purpose of this is to stop the potential
allowance of glass shards into paper mills, which could potentially halt production and cause an
unsafe work environment. Additionally, there are potential contamination risks to be found in
even combining materials such as plastic and aluminum, hence leading to the solution of many to
go to source separated means of recycling, despite potential risks for lower public participation
as well as increased costs for transportation and labor during collection. “There is a particular
concern that glass shards and PET bottles can contaminate paper loads and wreak havoc in a
paper mill, and that glass, plastic and aluminum containers cross-contaminate each other” (Single
Stream Recycling).
 Ancharski !6

Vienna, Austria uses a source separated means of waste collection. Rather than having
specific cans for each household, there exists many communal locations throughout the city
where people can go and empty their recyclables already separated. The MA48 is Vienna’s
program for this, and it consists of around 3,500 employees who collect waste as well as clean
the streets and clear snow during winter months. There are approximately 4,300 recycling
collection points throughout the city, and 19 waste collection centers. (Waste Management, Street
Cleaning, and Vehicle Fleet 5) At these collection points, people deposit waste separated into
plastics, papers, aluminum, glass, and biowaste. The biowaste is sent to farmers for composting,
while the rest is sent to be turned back into raw materials and to be sold. “What seems confusing
at first glance is actually quite reasonable: only correctly separated biowaste can produce top-
quality compost for organic farming, and only correctly separated glass fractions provide the raw
material for new bottles” (Waste Management, Street Cleaning, and Vehicle Fleet 5).
Looking at the numbers involved, the MA 48 collects approximately 1,000,000 tonnes of
waste per year. Of this, approximately 35% or 35,000 tonnes are collected at these points
throughout the city. In a specific breakdown of this total sum, the MA 48 reports the following as
general figures: 500,000 tonnes of household waste, 130,000 tonnes of other combustable mixed
waste, 70,000 tonnes of construction waste, 130,000 tonnes of waste paper and cardboard,
120,000 tonnes of biogenic waste, 45,000 tonnes of wood (treated and untreated), 27,000 tonnes
of clear and colored glass, 13,000 tonnes of scrap metal and metal packaging, 7,000 tonnes of
problematic and hazardous waste (including car wrecks), 7,000 tonnes of plastics, and 5,000
tonnes of electrical appliances. (Waste Management, Street Cleaning, and Vehicle Fleet 5)
Looking at this, perhaps most surprising to me is the low percentage of plastics compared with
other materials. Of the total waste, plastics only make up 7% in total weight. However, this could
be due to the light weight of plastic products, and not necessarily a shortage in amount of total
units forming the waste. In the case of wood, it might take several cases worth of plastic drinks
to make up for one plank of wood.
Looking at Vienna’s total population, we can now see how much waste is consumed by
the average citizen of the city. According to census data, Vienna currently has a population of
approximately 1,915,338 people and is growing at a rate of 1.08%. (Vienna Population 2019) For
 Ancharski !7

the sake of simplicity I will round this figure to 2,000,000. Therefore, by dividing the total
amount of waste by this number, I can conclude that each person is responsible for roughly 0.5
tonnes of waste per year. Of this 0.175 tonnes are recyclable (35%), while 0.325 is general
unrecycled waste, most of it incinerated.
Boston, Massachusetts’s population is much smaller than Vienna’s. The population in
2017 was recorded as 685,094, with a growth rate of 0.98%. (Boston, Massachusetts Population
2019) According to a 2008 report, Boston created 13,900,000 tons of waste, of which 9,200,000
came from household sources. In keeping with the main points of comparison as well as the
general themes of this essay, I will focus only on this household source statistic. Converted to
metric tonnes, this 9,200,000 million converts to approximately 8,000,000 tonnes per year.
Considering the population, this equates to approximately 11.7 tonnes per person per year. Of
this, 37% is recycled (56% for the entire waste source). According to overall statistics, this waste
is either thrown away or recycled at different rates depending on the material, although the info
provided only specifies these percentages based off of overall consumption rather than household
input to the system. However, in most cases it can be assumed that these figures are fairly
similar. For paper and cardboard, 56% is recycled, for organics 2.5%, for yard waste 65%, for
plastics 5.4%, for wood 21%, for scrap metal 52%, and for glass 60%. The rest of these materials
that are not recycled are either burned or buried. (Garbage And Recycling In Massachusetts: The
Past, The Present, And The Future)
Some of this is surprising, while some of it is not. Perhaps the most surprising is the
amount of waste produced per person per year, totaling at approximately 11.7 tonnes. There may
be several reasons for this. First of all, the census of Boston only includes those who live in the
city permanently. Boston is surrounded by suburbs, who commute to the city every day and
generate waste that is handled by the city. Additionally, people constantly come into the city at
night for events such as sporting games or concerts. “Interestingly, Boston’s actual population
fluctuates rapidly between day and night, as well as during special events. It’s estimated that 1.2
million people are in the city during work hours, and 2 million during special events in the city,
as hundreds of thousands of residents in the suburbs commute to the city for education, health
care, and work” (Boston, Massachusetts Population 2019). Additionally, whereas Vienna is
 Ancharski !8

contained in its 23 districts, Boston’s suburbs are not organized as much, and it is often difficult
to tell exactly what constitutes as the city or not. Therefore, it is possible that the total amount of
trash represents the Greater Boston area, while the population count is only representative of the
main city, thus throwing the average amount of waste per person off. However, this number is
still rather high even if reduced slightly to accommodate for these potential discrepancies.
What then, could be causing the people of Boston to consume more materials than in
Vienna? One possible idea is a potential lack of environmental awareness when purchasing
goods. Additionally, it is possible that the blame may lie on the side of manufacturers, with those
in America tending towards making products that use more materials such as plastics and
cardboards. Speaking as someone who has spent considerable amounts of time in both cities, this
may very well be the case. I have found personally that on average European items tend to use
less materials in packaging. Plastic bottles tend to be thinner, as well going for all other types of
packaging. In America, when one goes to the grocery store plastic bags are supplied for free and
it is socially acceptable to take as many as one wants. In Austria, the consumer often has to pay
extra for bags provided by the store, and it is generally expected that the customer will bring
their own reusable bags. Also, while this may be only a slight factor, it is possible that having to
physically sort through waste before ultimately leaving one’s house in order to dispense of it
through communal bins helps remind the person of exactly how much waste they are creating. In
America it often feels like instead that everything is forgotten as soon as it is finished being
consumed.
However, it must also be noted that the recycling rate out of all waste is 37%, two more
than Vienna’s. Therefore, the issue of public awareness concerning recycling does seem to be
fairly equal in terms of participation. This is good news for those who are trying to push Boston
towards becoming a more sustainable city. The challenge therefore for the people responsible for
collecting waste therefore should be at looking at lowering overall consumption rates rather than
increasing recycling participation. They should also look into increased spending on sustainable
infrastructure that can handle waste coming from things such as incineration, as I will explain
later.
 Ancharski !9

One of Vienna’s biggest projects is its usage of unrecycled waste to create energy via
incineration. The Pfaffenau waste incineration plant, acronymically MVA, is one of the newest
and largest to do this. “Since Autumn 2008, the Pfaffenau waste incineration plant (German
acronym “MVA”) has been producing approx. 410 GWh (gigawatt hours) of district heat and 65
GWh of electricity from approx. 250,000 tonnes of residual waste annually, thereby supplying
approx. 50,000 Viennese households with district heating and approx. 25,000, with electricity. A
four-stage flue gas scrubbing plant decreases emissions to a minimum” (Waste Management in
Vienna 7). Through things like this, Vienna is able to provide energy and heating to its citizens
while maintaining a low usage of harmful energy sources such as fossil fuels.
Nearby to this Pfaffenau waste incineration plant is the Simmering waste logistics center,
or ALZ, where trash that is not incinerated yet waits. Online, the MA 48 explains the purpose of
this facility. “If necessary, the pre-treated, compacted waste is wrapped in airtight bales and
stored until incineration without releasing unpleasant odours. This insures reliable disposal even
in case of repairs or downtimes at waste incineration plants” (Waste Management, Street
Cleaning and Vehicle Fleet 7). At the Rinter hut nearby, also known as the MA 48 tent,
recyclable waste is sorted through and shipped, and problematic waste is sorted and temporarily
stored. Here, the ash from trash incineration is also taken care of. “Waste incineration residues
(ash and slag) are demetalised and converted into slag-ash concrete” (Waste Management, Street
Cleaning and Vehicle Fleet 7). This concrete then goes to the Rautenweg landfill, where it is
stored with protection added to avoid it contaminating the water supply.
Also mentioned by the MA 48 is Vienna’s emphasis on composting. Decomposable
organic material is collected from consumers and turned into compost. At the Lobau composting
plant approximately 100,000 tonnes of garden trimmings are received and converted into high-
grade compost. Additionally, at the Biogas Wien processing plant, approximately 22,000 tonnes
of kitchen scraps are turned into biogas, which helps with the city’s district-heating system.
(Waste Management in Vienna 6) As explained further, in the cases of material that was put in a
landfill prior to the city’s adoption of incineration, this too is turned into energy. “Even methane-
containing landfill gas (from pre-2009 landfilling) is extracted and supplies electricity to around
2,200 Viennese households” (Waste Management in Vienna 7).
 Ancharski !10

Boston uses an incineration as well in their waste disposal. However, it is not always a
perfect process, something that can be seen in the nearby town of Revere. Here, an incinerator is
causing pollution due to water repeatedly coming into contact with the plant. “The landfill
contains fly ash and bottom ash from materials that do not burn during waste incineration,
leaving a mix of heavy metals and toxic chemicals, such as mercury, cadmium, arsenic, lead and
dioxins” (Schmidt). While there is a plastic barrier protecting harmful chemicals contained in the
ash from escaping into the wildlife, residents wonder whether or not it will last or if holes will be
created allowing ecological havoc to occur. Additionally, people who live near such landfills
have a higher chance of getting illnesses such as leukemia, testicular cancer, and larynx cancer.
With the worsening conditions caused by recent developments in climate change, it is also likely
that the water will continue to rise, worsening such problems. “Given that the area is predicted to
see a rise in the sea level of one to two feet by the end of the century, “these are the type of issues
that keep me up at night,” LeBlanc says. “If there were some kind of major breach in a storm
here with this ash landfill and that were to empty into the marsh, I just don’t know how or if you
would be able to clean that up”” (Schmidt). Therefore, we can see how it is important to take
proper care when creating alternatives to regular solutions. In the case of incineration, it is
important to be aware of potential ecological damage that can possibly be done through the
harmful byproducts of such a process. Proper air filters and protection against the outside
environment are absolutely necessary in order for it to work and contribute beneficially to
society.
Looking at the methods of waste disposal employed by both Boston and Vienna, it seems
to me that Boston could benefit greatly by studying some of the methods employed by Vienna.
Notably, I think that it would a good idea to switch from single stream recycling to source
separated recycling. By doing this, Boston’s system would improve greatly. While it does cost
more to transport materials, Boston would ultimately save money by not having to sort through
the waste as much once it reaches a facility. Also, given that the recycling rate in Boston is
slightly higher than Vienna’s it is possible that making the switch would still have a good turnout
rate. Speaking from personal experience having talked to people who live in the area and having
lived in the area myself, there is often a lot of confusion regarding what materials can and cannot
 Ancharski 1! 1

be recycled. By having clearly specified separate bins for people to put their trash in, it will be
easier for people to more confidently recycle their materials that are recyclable, as well as avoid
accidentally recycling materials that are not recyclable. This way, as explained earlier when
dealing with the downsides of single stream recycling, we can avoid unnecessary costs and risks
after collection, such as the costs of having to separate the waste in a separate facility as well as
the risks of breaking factory equipment and causing harm when materials such as glass shards
gets stuck in paper materials when shipped to paper mills. This lack of cross contamination and
general increased avoidance of recycling the wrong materials would be incredibly beneficial to
Boston as a whole. “Both programs require effective communication to consumers. Placing the
wrong items in the recycling stream makes the materials less desirable, less valuable, and more
difficult to manufacture into new products” (Peacock). Additionally, it might also help to begin
this switch by trying out less extreme versions of source separated recycling. For example,
instead of having consumers forced to go to collection points, it might help to begin by having
two bins of recyclables put out at curbside for collection: one for paper goods and the other for
glass, aluminum, and plastic.
This is not to say that this will solve all problems and that Boston would become
completely efficient should this happen. In Vienna a source separated model for recycling is
used, and yet there is still a large amount of good that could be recycled that are not. “Every year,
Vienna’s citizens collect more than 350,000 tonnes of recyclables - a good turnout for a
metropolis. However, this volume could be evidently increased since there are still quantities of
plastic bottles, cans or glass bottles to be found in residual waste” (Waste Management in Vienna
8). This problem seems to be one everywhere, with the environmental obligation to recycle being
replaced with the seeming ease of simply throwing out everything in the main disposal. Having
lived in Vienna for the past few months, one thing I have noticed is a general lack of public
recycling baskets to be found in busy public centers. Spending most of my time around
Stephansplatz, I would often see cans that collected unrecyclable trash around various shops and
stores. However, when I were to purchase a plastic bottle of soda or juice, I would often find
myself either having to throw it away in the wrong bin or use a bin located well inside of the
train station nearby. Therefore, while it will not completely solve the problem of types of waste
 Ancharski !12

being put in the wrong containers, adding more smaller points of recycling next to normal trash
cans might be a feasible solution towards solving this problem.
Vienna, Austria and Boston, United States are two large cities that each have their own
ways of dealing with waste provided by the public. In Boston a single stream method of
recycling is used, where all recyclables are collected in one bin per household. In Vienna a
source separated method is used, where consumers separate their waste into multiple bins that
are communally used and located throughout the city. Through an examination of these methods,
I have concluded that it might be in Boston’s best interest to switch towards this source separated
method of collecting waste. Additionally, I examined the methods of incineration and its
resulting energy creation found in both cities. In this case, Vienna’s methods of incineration were
shown to be more sustainable due to their contained approach to dealing with the remains, as
well as the trash that has not been incinerated yet. Additionally, Vienna serves as a source of
compost as well as energy from gasses released from waste stored before the usage of
incineration was introduced. While neither city is perfect in their ways of dealing with waste, I
have found ways in which each is working towards their goals of sustainable waste treatment,
and in what ways they can potentially look to in order to improve upon their systems.
 Ancharski !13

Works Cited

“Boston, Massachusetts Population 2019.” Worldpopulationreview.com, World Population

Review, www.worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/boston-population/.
“Garbage And Recycling In Massachusetts: The Facts, The Present, And The Future.”
Toxicsaction.org, Toxics Action Center, www.toxicsaction.org/wp-content/uploads/
garbage-and-recycling-in-massachusetts.pdf.
“Get Rid of Household Hazardous Waste.” Boston.gov, City of Boston, 16 May 2019,
www.boston.gov/departments/public-works/get-rid-household-hazardous-waste.
Peacock, Danielle. “ReLoop: What Is Source Separated Recycling?” Greenblue.org, GreenBlue,
www.greenblue.org/reloop-what-is-source-separated-recycling/.
“Recycling Household Electronics.” Boston.gov, City of Boston, 12 Apr. 2019, www.boston.gov/
departments/public-works/recycling-household-electronics.
“Recycling in Boston.” Boston.gov, City of Boston, 7 May 2019, www.boston.gov/departments/
public-works/recycling-boston.
Schmidt, Stephen. “Residents Worry Massachusetts Waste Incinerator Is Contaminating
Waterways.” Pri.org, Public Radio International, www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-12/
residents-worry-massachusetts-waste-incinerator-contaminating-waterways.
“Single Stream Recycling.” Container-Recycling.org, Container Recycling Institute,
www.container-recycling.org/index.php/issues/single-stream-recycling#note2.
Thon, Josef. “Waste Management in Vienna.” Wien.gv.at, City of Vienna, Aug. 2013,
www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/ma48/service/publikationen/pdf/abfallwirtschaft-en.pdf.
Thon, Josef. “Waste Management, Street Cleaning and Vehicle Fleet.” Wien.gv.at, City of
Vienna, Aug. 2013. https://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/ma48/service/publikationen/pdf/da-
sein-fuer-wien-en.pdf.
“Vienna Population 2019.” Worldpopulationreview.com, World Population Review,
worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/vienna-population/.
Waxman, Olivia B. “America Recycles Day 2016: A Brief History of Recycling.” Time.com,
Time USA, 15 Nov. 2016, time.com/4568234/history-origins-recycling/.