University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies Graduate Capstones 2021-08 Toward Zero Waste – A Study In Reducing And Managing Lab Waste Choi, Gideon Choi, G. (2021). Toward Zero Waste – A Study In Reducing And Managing Lab Waste (Unpublished master's project). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/113940 report University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
Transcript
University of Calgary
PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies Graduate Capstones
2021-08
Toward Zero Waste – A Study In Reducing And
Managing Lab Waste
Choi, Gideon
Choi, G. (2021). Toward Zero Waste – A Study In Reducing And Managing Lab Waste
(Unpublished master's project). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
http://hdl.handle.net/1880/113940
report
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Toward Zero Waste – A Study in Reducing and Managing Lab Waste
by Gideon Choi
A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Q6: Estimate the typical length of time it takes to fill the laboratory Blue Bucket.
• 2-3 days
• 5-7 days
• Two weeks
• Three weeks or more
• Unsure
• Other:
Q7: How familiar are you with knowing what materials belong in the Blue Bucket versus the mixed recycling bin?
• Extremely familiar
• Very familiar
• Moderately familiar
• Slightly familiar
• Not familiar at all
Q8: Are you aware that all materials placed in the Blue Bucket must be clean of all contaminants?
• Yes
• No
Q9: Are you aware that no sharps (i.e. needles) are to be placed in the Blue Bucket?
• Yes
• No Q10: Are you aware that most plastic caps can not be placed in the Blue Bucket?
• Yes
• No
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 32
Table 4: Lab waste reduction electronic survey questions part 2.
Q11: How satisfied are you in the current guides for disposal of materials in the Blue Bucket? (Note: current guidelines for waste disposal can be found here: https://www.ucalgary.ca/sustainability/our-sustainable-campus/waste-and-recycling)
• Extremely satisfied
• Somewhat satisfied
• Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Q12: Which of the following suggestions would help improve the disposal guide for the blue bucket? (Check all that apply.)
• More pictures of acceptable/unacceptable materials
• Extra descriptions of acceptable or un-acceptable materials
• Fewer descriptions of acceptable and un-acceptable materials
• Extra instructions about preparing materials for disposal
• Fewer instructions about preparing materials for disposal
• Additional guidance on which materials are hazardous and which are non-hazardous.
• Other: Q13: Would you be willing to attend a workshop about proper disposal of non-hazardous waste?
• Yes
• No
• Other: Q14: Would you be willing to have staff from Facilities perform a visual waste audit at your lab to help design more specific programs for addressing common items being discarded?
• Yes
• No
• Other:
Q15: How has COVID-19 affected the volume of non-hazardous waste generated at your lab?
• Decrease (less waste generated than typical)
• Relatively little (No change or less than 5% increase)
• Moderate impact (roughly 5-15% increase) Q16: For the University's 70% waste diversion by 2025 and 90% waste diversion target by 2030, rate how likely you feel your lab could meet these targets.
• Extremely likely
• Somewhat likely
• Neither likely nor unlikely
• Somewhat unlikely Extremely unlikely Q17: Which of the following suggestions would help most with understanding non-hazardous waste disposal protocols? (Check the 3 (three) most useful suggestions.)
• Regular scheduled waste audits
• Reminder emails from Facilities staff
• Extra posters showing waste disposal guidelines
• Training seminars teaching on waste disposal guidelines
• Videos showing waste disposal guidelines
• A specific Facilities staff member to direct questions to regarding waste disposal
• A workshop explaining waste reduction targets as they relate to University labs
• Other: Q18: Let us know any other concerns you have or opportunities to improve management of non-hazardous waste at University research labs:
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 33
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis: Reimagine
‘Reimagine’ approaches to waste management flow out of the top tiers of the Zero
Waste hierarchy (Figure 1) and the top rungs of the circularity ladder (Figure 10). Reimagine
approaches are the most powerful waste management tools as they reduce waste prior to the
materials entering a system. The electronic survey on lab waste reduction and interviews with
counterparts from UC and other western Canadian universities provide evaluative tools for
designing lab operations with reduced consumption and production of waste. Interviews with
counterparts from outside universities provide prospective working practices of lab
sustainability while interviews with UC counterparts and the electronic survey build a local
context to recommending changes for improving waste diversion. Additionally, historical waste
production data from the entire UC and from individual building units within UC will serve as a
source of comparative analysis.
4.1: Survey
4.1.1: Demographics
An electronic questionnaire was distributed on July 12, 2021, with a data collection
period of 21 days. 83 complete responses and 14 partially complete responses were submitted
during this collection period. The number of respondents is encouraging, considering that the
survey was distributed during a time when many labs are functioning in a partial shut-down
capacity due to travel restrictions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to collect a
larger data set, it is possible that the survey could be distributed in the upcoming fall or winter
semester when labs are at full capacity. This report will feature selected results from the
survey, and full results are shown in Appendix B: Waste Reduction Survey Raw Data.
Page | 34
Close to 60% of respondents work at the Cummings School of Medicine (located at the
Foothills Health Campus), and the remaining respondents work at the university’s Main
Campus. Of the 40% of respondents from the Main Campus, representation was spread among
various faculties, with Faculty of Science representing 16% of respondents (Figure 11). The over
representation of the medical faculty in the survey will skew the survey results towards
patterns particular to the Foothills Health Campus.
Figure 11: Faculty of belonging for survey respondents.
Note: (Author, 2021)
Respondents were asked whether their lab was a shared space (multiple principal
investigators (PIs)) or a singular lab space (single PI), and 67% of respondents came from
singular labs spaces. Figure 12 shows that only 27% of respondents come from labs with 11 or
more students and staff. This implies that lines of communication for the high majority of labs is
non-complex, making messaging to PIs arising from University Facilities Management likely to
Cumming School of Medicine
59%
Faculty of Kinesiology: 5%
Faculty of Science: 16%
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine: 5%
Schulich School of Engineering: 6%
Other: 9%
Main Campus41%
Faculty of Belonging
Page | 35
reach all lab workers. 82% of respondents worked in a research lab, with only a handful of
respondents arising from instructional labs, service labs or support labs (graph not shown). This
implies that survey results are indicative more of activities in research labs. Further research
would need to be conducted to confidently apply recommendations broadly across all lab
types.
Figure 12: Total number of workers in labs of respondents.
Note: (Author, 2021)
4.1.2: Blue Bucket Program
The current collection procedure for lab blue buckets involves workers placing the
bucket outside of the lab once a week on a prescribed day of the week. Figure 13 reveals that
almost 75% of labs take two weeks or more to fill the lab blue bucket, implying that a less
frequent pick up schedule could produce cost savings for university caretaking. Blue bucket fill
time was also analyzed as it relates to lab size and campus of belonging for respondents. 27% of
small labs fill the blue bucket in 7 days or less, compared to 23% of large labs (Figure 14). This
shows little difference in the rate of blue bucket filling between small and large labs. Comparing
1-1073%
11-2518%
26-505%
Over 504%
Lab size
Page | 36
labs from the two different campuses, 39% of Foothills Health Campus labs fill the blue bucket
in 7 days or less, compared to 7% of main campus labs (Figure 15). The significant difference in
fill rates between the labs indicates that a once a week pick up schedule for Foothills Health
Campus is likely necessary whereas pick up every two weeks for Main Campus labs is likely
sufficient.
Figure 13: Respondent estimates of average time to fill the lab blue bucket.
Note: (Author, 2021)
2-3 days5%
5-7 days22%
Two weeks26%
Three weeks or more31%
Unsure5%
Other11%
Two weeks or more73%
Length of Time to Fill Blue Bucket
Page | 37
Figure 14: Length of time to fill blue bucket as correlated to lab size.
Note: (Author, 2021)
Figure 15: Length of time to fill blue bucket as correlated to campus of belonging.
Note: (Author, 2021)
The blue bucket program is designed for caretaker safety as it is a collection bin for
pointy plastics and broken or unbroken glass. An infographic was distributed to all university
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2-3 days 5-7 days 2 weeks 3 weeks ormore
Other /Unsure
Per
cen
t o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Lab Size and Blue Bucket Fill Time
Small Lab (1-10) Large Lab (11 or more))
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Other / Unsure
3 weeks or more
2 weeks
5-7 days
2-3 days
Percent of Respondents
Campus and Blue Bucket Fill Time
Foothills Health Campus Main Campus
Page | 38
labs by email in February 2021 in efforts to curb the amounts of improper materials being
placed in the blue buckets. The full size infographic is included in Appendix E: Educational
Material Samples and a smaller version is shown on Figure 26. 53% of respondents indicate that
they are very familiar or extremely familiar, and 83% of respondents indicate they are
moderately familiar or better with blue bucket guidelines (Figure 16). Blue bucket familiarity
was analyzed as it relates to lab size and campus of belonging. Small labs show a slightly higher
tendency for guideline familiarity, with 24% of small lab respondents being very familiar
compared to 9% from labs with 11 or more workers (Figure 17). Similarly, 13% of small lab
workers are slightly familiar or not familiar with guidelines, as compared to 22% from large labs
(Figure 17). Comparing familiarity between campuses, 59% of Foothills Health Campus
respondents are very familiar or extremely familiar with the guidelines, compared to 41% from
the Main Campus (Figure 18). The increased familiarity with the blue bucket guidelines at the
Foothills Health Campus may be a product of the more common use of the blue bucket at that
campus.
Page | 39
Figure 16: Familiarity with blue bucket guidelines of respondents.
Note: (Author, 2021)
Figure 17: Blue bucket guideline familiarity as correlated to lab size.
Note: (Author, 2021)
Extremely familiar
19%
Very familiar34%
Moderately familiar
30%
Slightly familiar10%
Not familiar at all7%
Familiarity with Blue Bucket Guidelines
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
ExtremelyFamiliar
Very Familiar ModeratelyFamiliar
SlightlyFamiliar
Not FamiliarAt All
Pe
rce
nt
of
Re
spo
nd
ents
Lab Size and Blue Bucket Familiarity
Small Lab (1-10) Large Lab (11 or more))
Page | 40
Figure 18: Blue bucket guideline familiarity as correlated to campus of belonging.
Note: (Author, 2021)
Respondents were given opportunity to choose from a list of suggestions that could
improve the blue bucket guidelines. From the given list, the top three choices were ‘more
pictures of acceptable/unacceptable materials’, (69%), ‘extra descriptions of acceptable or un-
acceptable materials’ (43%), and ‘extra instructions about preparing materials for disposal’
(36%) (Figure 19). The top three choices relate to receiving more information, with a strong
preference for visual guides. Empirical observations of blue bucket waste generation of the past
4 months shows a large decrease in the number of haul requests for the blue bucket main
holding container, indicating that the visual guide distributed in February 2021 is producing the
intended results. 13% of respondents chose to write comments instead of choosing from the
prescribed list, and the most common theme of these comments is requests for more recycling
options and requests to reduce complexity of waste sorting. See Appendix C: Disposal Guide
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Not Familiar At All
Slightly Familiar
Moderately Familiar
Very Familiar
Extremely Familiar
Percent of Respondents
Campus and Blue Bucket Familiarity
Foothills Health Campus Main Campus / Other Campuses
Page | 41
Survey Question for original comments from this question along with a classification theme for
each comment.
Figure 19: Responses to ‘Which of the following suggestions would help improve the disposal guide for the blue bucket? (Check all that apply)’.
Note: (Author, 2021)
4.1.3: Non-hazardous waste protocols
Using a wider lens to examine waste management protocols for all non-hazardous
waste, respondents were asked the question: ‘Which of the following suggestions would help
most with understanding non-hazardous waste disposal protocols? (Check the one (1) most
useful suggestion.)’. The three most popular choices were ‘extra posters showing waste
disposal guidelines’ (26%), followed by ‘videos showing waste disposal guidelines’ (18%),
followed by ‘a specific Facilities staff member to direct questions to regarding waste disposal’
13%
24%
1%
36%
1%
43%
69%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other
Guidance on hazmat/non-hazmat items
Fewer instructions for preparation
More instructions for preparation
Fewer descriptions
Extra descriptions
Additional Pictures
Percentage of Responses
Top three choices to improve Blue Bucket disposal guidelines
Page | 42
(14%). Similar to the choosing of suggestions to improve the blue bucket guide, visual means of
showing information are strongly chosen – first in poster format, and next in video format.
Figure 20: Responses to ‘Which of the following suggestions would help most with understanding non-hazardous waste disposal protocols? (Check the one (1) most useful suggestion.)’.
Note: (Author, 2021)
This highlights the importance of outreach and education materials prepared by university
Facilities Management. Access to specific guidance is also an important consideration in the
design of waste management protocols. This is perhaps due to the specialized nature of lab
waste. 14% of respondents chose the ‘other’ category, and the high number of responses in this
area arose partly from improper set up of the question for a large portion of the responses,
with respondents asked to choose the three most useful suggestions, but with an electronic
form set up to only accept one response. Of the comments in this question, the most common
14%
8%
26%
10%
11%
12%
18%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Dedicated staff member
Reduction targets workshop
Poster
Waste Audit
Reminder emails
Disposal training seminar
Video
Percent of total votes
Most Helpful Way to Improve Non-Hazardous Waste Protocols
Page | 43
themes are requests for more recycling options, requests to reduce landfill waste, and clarity
regarding the final destination of blue bucket waste. The requests for clarity indicate some level
of misunderstanding regarding the nature of blue bucket waste, and this will be a discussed
further in section6.2: Cost and Effort Analysis, and section7.1.2: Clarity.
Comments from the suggestions to improve non-hazardous waste protocols are
combined with the comments from the open text box at the end of the survey asking ‘Let us
know any other concerns you have or opportunities to improve management of non-hazardous
waste at University research labs’ and can be found in Appendix D: Non-Hazardous Waste
Protocol Question. From the comments given, it is clear that respondents are interested in
increasing sustainability activities in labs. Multiple suggestions inquire about specific lab items
which are currently discarded to landfill. Estimates of non-hazardous lab waste does not include
such waste, and further discussion of quantifying blue bucket waste will be included in
section5.2: Blue Bucket Case Study – Glass and Plastic Diversion. Some comments also reflect
growing pains as they relate to the adoption of new waste protocols. At the introduction of the
four stream waste containers (landfill waste, recyclable containers, mixed recycling,
compostables), landfill waste bins were removed from labs in order to centralize and
universalize the four stream waste collection bins, which are placed at maximum 10 metres
from any lab. Lab workers are required to bring landfill waste to the four stream waste bins,
and this does pose a challenge for labs that produce large volumes of materials that is currently
being directed to landfill, such as conical tubes, vacuum filter units, surgical pipettes and petri
dishes (Figure 21). The prevalence of single-use items in labs is high, and recycling conscious
individuals are expressing concern about the large amounts of landfill waste produced waste
Page | 44
produced. Also, comments do show a potential lack of awareness of the nature of the blue
bucket program being a safety program for potentially pointy items and not a lab plastics
recycling program.
Figure 21: Examples of products currently directed to landfill.
The importance of establishing a culture of sustainability and a lab-wide training is
highlighted in the comment:
“Students should be trained by their supervisor or at least the Professor needs to
emphasize the importance of proper waste disposal. Otherwise all your emails, audits
and so forth are meaningless. Very few are environmentally conscious. I am tired of
resorting others waste. Taking paper out of waste. etc. Until people care, rules do not
matter unless they are enforced by your immediate employer or supervisor (Not the Lab
Manager but from the P.I.) This has to instilled into people and must come from
examples from the top down.”
The importance of aiming for a whole lab commitment and support from leadership can not be
overstated. The dialogue of sustainability is not foreign to most, although if it is not established
Page | 45
as an organizing process in labs, the effort by the few in the labs with more desire to see
recycling happen will be met with frustration.
4.1.4: Further Results
Two more points of interest arising from the electronic survey are noted here. Figure 22
shows responses to the question: ‘Would you be willing to attend a workshop about proper
disposal of non-hazardous waste?’. 36% of respondents are agreeable to attending a workshop,
and comments found in the ‘Other’ option reveal varying degrees of hesitancy, ranging from
concern that such workshops are not a good spend of time, to requests to having training
videos instead, to PIs sending representatives instead of attending the workshop personally.
Though comments and responses highlighted in the previous section show desire to increase
commitment to sustainability, there is resistance to workshop attendance.
Figure 22: Respondents’ willingness level to attend a workshop about proper non-hazardous
waste disposal.
Note: (Author, 2021)
Figure 23 shows responses to the question: ‘How has COVID-19 affected the volume of
non-hazardous waste generated at your lab?’. 93% of respondents indicated that COVID-19 has
either decreased or changed the amount of waste generation very little. Presumably, a high
Yes36%
No51%
Other13%
Workshop Attendance
Page | 46
proportion of the research labs from the university were not required to change operating
procedures to incorporate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), or research
activities slowed down or were stopped because of pandemic restrictions. The responses do
indicate that if waste amounts for the 2020-21 reporting period do increase at UC, it is unlikely
that research labs are the source of the increased waste generation.
Figure 23: Respondents’ estimation of the effect of waste generation arising from COVID-19
protocols.
Note: (Author, 2021)
4.2: University Counterpart Interviews
In comparing sustainable lab activities in labs across North America, patterns emerge
revealing similarities and differences. The author had opportunity to connect personally with a
Facilities Management, Health and Safety, and Office of Sustainability staff at UC. Also, with a
waste management and a green labs specialist at University of Alberta (UA), and a green labs
specialist at University of British Columbia (UBC). With UA and UBC, both universities have
Decreased waste:
42%
Little Change
(Less than 5%)51%
Moderate change (5% -
15%)7%
Large change (15%
- 25%):0%
COVID-19 Effect on Waste
Page | 47
established formal green labs programs in recognition of the specialized nature of sustainability
activities in labs. At UC, promotion of sustainable lab activities is separated between Facilities
Management and Office of Sustainability, and no formal green labs program has been
established. All three universities mentioned that sustainable lab activities are voluntary. UBC
has adopted a voluntary sign up approach to participate in the Green Labs program, while UA
has created a locally developed Green Labs certification program. All three universities have
created Zero Waste strategies and have adopted multi-stream waste diversion involving
segregation of mixed recycling, compost and landfill waste. All three universities also recognize
the importance of promoting sustainability actions done at the university, often showcasing
actions done by labs, and establishing sustainability grants to enact specific action plans. A
number of the current sustainable lab practices in place at UA and UBC (such as Shut the Sash,
Chill Up Challenge, and green procurement) were discussed in section2.1: Sustainable Labs.
Other notable measures being explored are:
• increasing efficiency of lab glass re-use by using a collection and washing of like
materials program (UBC)
• use of provincially legislated framework of extended producer responsibility
(EPR) to direct discussions with manufacturers of lab plastics on how they can be
produced more sustainably (UBC)
• Third party Styrofoam recycling (UA)
• Lab waste reduction competitions and recognition awards (UA)
• Waste pick up sign off sheets verifying lab workers have checked for
contamination and potential waste diversion opportunities (UC)
Page | 48
A theme that emerges from conversations with all individuals at the three universities is
the importance of organizational cohesion. Perception of a poorly managed waste program
draws the effectiveness of waste management into question, and results in poor buy in to
waste diversion measures. The university’s waste management department must thus consider
both the logistical aspect of collecting waste, and the educational aspect of promoting waste
diversion. Initiatives to increase waste diversion and other sustainable lab activities require a
careful balance of positive and negative messaging along with a careful consideration of which
sustainability activities are voluntary or mandatory. Rate of change is also an important factor,
being careful to introduce initiatives at a measured pace, and trusting that initiatives will bring
about the expected change.
4.3: Historical Waste Data Analysis
Table 5 shows total tonnes of waste disposed to the municipal landfill from 2017-2020
for the entire University of Calgary. (Fiscal reporting season for waste collection runs from April
1 to March 31 of the following year). The proportion of waste sent to landfill has changed from
54% in 2017-2018 to 51% in 2019-2020, with waste diversion arising from recycling, composting
and surplus sale re-use. Table 6 shows a comparison of proportion of waste sent to landfill from
three building units: Biological Sciences, Health Science Centre and Science Theatre Complex.
The Biological Sciences and the Health Science Centre are primarily research lab buildings while
the Science Theatre Complex is primarily classrooms and offices. Both the Biological Sciences
building and the Health Science Centre show similar waste production profiles, with the highest
proportion of waste produced in 2017-18 at 78% for the Biological Sciences building. Both of
these buildings also show decreases in landfill waste over the most recent years, with a low of
Page | 49
65% waste to landfill proportion in 2019-2020. In comparison, the Science Theatre Complex
shows highest proportion of waste to landfill in 2017-18 at 72%, and a lowest proportion in
2019-2020 at 54%. Compared to the average waste to landfill proportion for the entire UC, the
two building units housing research labs consistently produce higher amounts, with a high of
24% excess in 2017-18 and a low of 14% in 2019-2020. For the same time periods, the building
with no research labs shows a smaller percentage difference compared to the entire UC, with a
high of 18% in 2017-18 and a low of 3% in 2019-20. The higher rate of landfill waste generation
in research lab buildings, as compared to non-research lab buildings shown in Table 6 is
potential evidence of the higher rate of waste generation from lab supplies such as petri dishes
and conical tubes currently directed to landfill (Figure 21). Areas of potential discrepancy in
data presented arise from the nature of data collection for individual buildings, as proportions
of diversion activities at specific loading docks are, in some cases, artificially increased due to
consolidation activities. However, the larger waste to landfill proportion in research lab
buildings does give compelling reasoning for further investigation of waste generation and
composition using visual and quantitative waste audit methods.
Page | 50
Table 5: Waste generation amounts and proportions for entire University of Calgary from 2017-
2020.
University of Calgary Waste Generation Amounts
Year
Materials disposed in a solid
waste landfill (tonnes)
Total waste generated (tonnes)
Proportion of waste sent to
landfill
Proportion of waste
diverted
2017-2018 1491.55 2743.81 54% 46%
2018-2019 1459.86 2648.59 55% 45%
2019-2020 1478.32 2872.93 51% 49%
Note: (Author, 2021). Historical waste collection data adapted from (The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System, 2021) and from data retrieved from UC Facilities Management (A. Pazmino, personal communication, August 19, 2021). Table 6: Waste generation proportion comparisons between UC building units.
Year
University total
Biological Sciences building
Health Science Campus
Science Theatre Complex
% landfill %
landfill %
difference %
landfill %
difference %
landfill %
difference
2017-2018 54% 78% + 24% 74% + 20% 72% + 18%
2018-2019 55% 73% + 18% 69% + 14% 72% + 17%
2019-2020 51% 65% + 14% 65% + 14% 54% + 3%
Note: (Author, 2021). Historical waste collection data adapted from (The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System, 2021) and from data retrieved from UC Facilities Management (A. Pazmino, personal communication, August 19, 2021).
Page | 51
Chapter 5: Findings and Analysis: Repurpose
‘Repurpose’ activities form the middle tiers of the Zero Waste hierarchy (Figure 1) and
the heart of the circularity activities forming the circularity ladder (Figure 10). Repurpose
activities explored in depth in this report are: increased waste diversion through recycling, and
a lab equipment re-use program. Waste diversion through glass and plastic recycling is one of
the easier and more available options that can divert non-hazardous waste. Lab equipment re-
use solutions are more difficult as they challenge the existing system of equipment ownership
and also require a restructuring of how research granting is decided. However, they also offer
new avenues of collaboration between labs and open opportunities for the larger scientific
community to share wealth and equipment.
5.1: Recycling Vendor Interviews
Mixed recycling operations have become well established, with their development
coinciding with many municipalities adopting mixed recycling programs. Glass recycling is a
mechanical process of breaking down into fine particles and using in processes such as sanding,
or melting and reforming into new containers. Plastic recycling is predominantly by means of
mechanical shredding, production of pellets and reforming into new products. Plastic recycling
is differentiated by plastic numbering system (Figure 24) (Eartheasy, 2012). Many common lab
items do not carry a plastic number, resulting in reduced options for lab plastic recycling.
Recycling at UC labs is managed by Capital Paper Recycling and waste management in general is
managed by GFL Environmental. The author corresponded with the current UC recycling vendor
along with a number of alternate recycling vendors to explore expanding recycling options.
Currently, lab glass is not accepted in UC’s mixed recycling program, and is instead placed in
Page | 52
blue buckets for landfill burial. Talks with Crystal Paper Recycling revealed a potential glass
recycling arrangement for lab glass if it is cleaned of visible contaminants and is collected
separate from the mixed recycling stream. Many lab plastics are not accepted by the current
recycling vendor due to various issues of size, potential contamination and lack of plastic
recycling number. Various vendors are currently exploring the possibility of making special
arrangements with UC labs for recycling of various high quantity items if low contamination
rates can be ensured for the products. Such arrangements could address the waste diversion of
items such as conical tubes and surgical pipettes (see Figure 21). There is a typical lower size
limits for material recovery facilities (MRFs) of 4-5 cm in diameter, meaning smaller items such
as pipette tips and micro-centrifuge tubes continue to lack recycling options (Figure 25).
Recent legislative changes support the notion of increased options for recycling of lab
plastics. A November 2020 Government of Alberta strategy document for Natural Gas lists the
circular economy of plastics recycling as a key growth area for industry and the province with a
stated goal of establishing Alberta as a “Western North America centre of excellence for plastics
diversion and recycling by 2030” (Government of Alberta, 2020). Expansion of extended
producer responsibility (EPR) consultation will take place in 2021, likely resulting in greater
number of circular economy opportunities for plastic waste (Recycling Council of Alberta,
2020). Public engagement on EPR occurred in early 2021 regarding the regulatory framework to
packaging and paper products (PPP) and single-use plastics (Alberta Environment and Parks,
2021). Currently, most plastic recycling vendors in Alberta function as product balers and
resellers, and this is an important consideration in finding suitable recycling vendor options for
increasing waste diversion.
5.2: Blue Bucket Case Study – Glass and Plastic Diversion
The blue bucket waste stream functions as a case study to help identify potential waste
diversion options for non-hazardous lab waste. Blue bucket waste at the UC Main Campus is
consolidated into a 15 cubic yard container which is hauled on average 24 times per year. Visual
waste inspection shows a composition of roughly 25% glass waste and 75% plastic waste. Glass
Page | 54
has an estimated density of 226kg/m3 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2016)
and an estimated annual generation amount of 15.5 tonnes/yr in UC blue buckets. Mixed
plastics have an estimated density of 24.0kg/m3 (United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 2016) and an estimated generation amount of 5.0 tonners/yr in UC blue buckets. Using
these approximations, the average mass density of consolidated blue bucket waste is
determined to be 87.75kg/m3 and a total mass of 20.5 tonnes/yr. Table 7 and Table 8 show
potential conservative and aggressive diversion rates for glass and plastic. Glass is assumed to
have a conservative diversion rate of 20% and an aggressive diversion rate of 40% as there are
few limitations on the types and shapes of glass that can be recycled by a third party vendor.
The vendor estimates that lab glass recycling can be made available to UC if it is consolidated
and palletized (roughly 2 - 3 tonnes per haul). The glass also needs to be triple rinsed and dried
before it can be collected for recycling. Increased glass diversion has potential benefits in both
reducing total landfill waste generated and reduced life cycle GHG emissions for glass
production (Table 7).
Plastic recycling is highly dependent on type, shape and size of plastic. Plastic containers
without plastic numbering information cannot be recycled in the existing mixed recycling
program. Education campaigns can be used to encourage the purchase of containers that can
be recycled in order to divert more lab plastics to mixed recycling bins. A conservative recycling
rate of 2% estimates diversion of particular plastics such as conical tubes, with a 10% aggressive
diversion rate (Table 8) if recycling options are obtained for an expanded number of items, such
as surgical pipettes and petri dishes.
Page | 55
Table 7: Potential glass diversion benefits.
Potential Glass Diversion Benefits
Diversion Diversion Rate Mass discarded (tonnes)
Net GHG Emissions (tonnes CO2eq)
None 0% 15.5 - 0
Conservative 20% 12.4 - 0.96
Aggressive 40% 9.3 - 1.91
Note: (Author, 2021). GHG emissions reduction calculations use EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) version 15 (Nov 2020) value of -0.28 tonnes CO2eq per short ton of glass recycled. 1 short ton = 907.1kg. Reference numbers from: (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020). Conservative glass diversion CO2eq reductions → 20% diversion rate (3.1 tonnes glass)
Note: (Author, 2021). Lab plastic assumed to be predominantly plastic #5 (polypropylene). GHG emissions reduction calculations use EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) version 15 (Nov 2020) value of -0.28 tonnes CO2eq per short ton of glass recycled. 1 short ton = 907.1kg. Reference numbers from: (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020). Conservative plastic diversion CO2eq reductions → 2% diversion rate (100kg plastic)
Looking at the blue bucket case study model, roughly 75% of all blue bucket waste is
plastic. The prevalence of single-use plastics means that it is cheaper to discard items like
pipettes and test tubes rather than washing and sanitizing the reusable glass versions. A long
term shift is needed in moving away from single-use plastic use, but the best current solution
for plastic waste reduction is diversion through recycling. Increased plastic diversion will result
in a decreased landfill waste generation and decreased life cycle GHG emissions for plastic
production (Table 8).
5.3: Zero Waste Challenge Interviews
The UC Hunter Hub for Entrepreneurial Thinking hosted a Zero Waste Challenge in May
2021 which was open to students of UC. In the three day competition, teams are asked to
present a proposal for enacting Zero Waste principles at UC (University of Calgary Hunter Hub,
2021). The author was connected with one of the winning submissions of the competition, to
explore the potential connection points with the research found in this lab waste reduction
project. A summary of key elements of this proposal are outlined below, with further discussion
found in sections 6.2: Cost and Effort Analysis and 7.1: Key Recommendations.
The Zero Waste winning submission team presented informal observations of
equipment under-utilization in the present lab they work together in. Previous graduate work in
Europe and South Asia revealed modes of equipment use that differ from the North American
model employed at UC. The model of equipment use at UC is segregated and lab specific, with
individual labs claiming ownership of lab equipment, and finances to purchase equipment
arising from grants awarded through adjudicated panels. The alternate models of equipment
usage presented by two members of the team reveal communal models of equipment and
Page | 57
chemical reagent usage, along with equipment succession to student training labs. Student
training labs offer hands-on experience for younger students and mentorship opportunities for
both undergraduate and graduate students. Additionally, a web platform can be established to
market under-utilized and surplus equipment and events can be hosted for exchange of surplus
lab equipment and lab supplies between labs. Surplus sales, similar to events organized by
Supply Chain Management for office furniture surplus sales, can be organized for lab
equipment.
Main roadblocks to establishing models of equipment re-use and repurposing is need
for support from UC facilities in providing physical space for communal equipment or for
student labs. Support from Facilities is also necessary for general maintenance and provision of
power and water. Web platforms useful for re-marketing equipment and supply surplus exist,
but financial and human resources are required for web development and administration of
such systems. Currently, equipment purchasing can be tracked, but continued ownership data
is not maintained. Updating of supply chain models would be necessary to allow for better
tracking for communal equipment use and better succession planning of equipment needing
updating.
Page | 58
Chapter 6: Findings and Analysis: Residuals
For the Zero Waste Hierarchy consideration of residuals, proper execution of higher
tiered activities will result in a total decrease of residuals. Proper compliance measures to
enforce sustainability actions will ensure the furthest reduction of waste. The blue bucket
rejection notices serve as a useful case study in the application of compliance measures, serving
to highlight considerations needed for successful implementation of a sustainability program. A
cost and effort analysis of multiple sustainable activities will also be offered, along with a
potential framework of understanding for implementing a sustainable lab certification program.
6.1: Blue Bucket Disposal Guidelines
6.1.1: Blue Bucket Collection
University Facilities Management distributed an infographic highlighting how common lab
items are to be sorted. A small version of the infographic is found on Figure 26, and full size
version is found in Appendix E: Educational Material Samples (University of Calgary Facilities
Management - Caretaking, 2021). The first list (Blue Bucket Acceptable Materials) shows pointy
tip plastics and glass. The second list (Blue Bucket Non-acceptable Materials) highlights items to
be sent to landfill bins, regulated containers (such as sharps), or re-used (such as amber glass).
The third list (Lab Recycling) shows items that can be diverted from landfill through the mixed
recycling bins located in the university’s four stream bins.
Page | 59
Figure 26: Non-hazardous waste disposal guide distributed February 2021.
Note: (University of Calgary Facilities Management - Caretaking, 2021)
Page | 60
Figure 27 is a sample of typical blue buckets placed outside of labs for pick up, and it can
be noted that visually, all items seen in these buckets are represented on the infographic,
showing that the infographic has shown useful information to labs. UC also administers an
amber glass re-use program for the large size (4L) amber glass bottles. Preparation of the
bottles involves triple rinsing, defacing of the label and keeping of the plastic cap. Figure 28
shows an amber glass bottle which does not have a plastic cap and therefore was discarded for
blue bucket pick-up.
Figure 27: Samples of blue buckets placed in hallways for caretaker pick-up.
Note: (Author, 2021; Author, 2021)
Page | 61
Figure 28: Amber glass for potential re-use.
Note: (Author, 2021)
6.1.2: Caretaking Training and Collection Protocols
Integral to a successful waste management program is adequate training of caretaking
staff as the caretakers act as gatekeepers regulating waste protocols. The author observed the
training process for caretaking staff at the Foothills Health Campus and the Main Campus
(Biological Sciences and Earth Sciences building) in June 2021. The rolling cart used for
collection of blue buckets is pictured in Figure 29, and the pick up for blue buckets is conducted
only in hallways. Collection carts have copies of the non-hazardous waste infographic (Figure
26), and caretakers are instructed to issue rejection notices if they notice any items that do not
belong in the blue buckets. It is notable that caretakers reject a blue bucket only if reject items
are seen by superficial observation. Caretakers are instructed not to dig through the entire
contents of the blue bucket, nor are they to handle items once they have been poured into the
collection cart. This process introduces potential for contamination of blue bucket items, and
Page | 62
this may highlight the need for other controls to manage the collection of blue bucket
materials.
Figure 30 shows the issuing of a rejection notice, and the wording of the notice matches
the wording of the waste disposal infographic (Figure 26) to increase the simplicity of the form
and simplicity of the caretaker training. Blue bucket rejection notices can be issued for
improper items found in the bucket, or for visual contamination observed on items. There are
occasions when sharps (i.e. needles) have been found in blue buckets, and this highlights the
extreme importance of proper training and consistent issuing of rejection notices in order to
protect the safety of caretaking staff and communicate with lab workers the necessity to
correctly manage waste streams in their labs.
Figure 29: Rolling collection cart for blue bucket waste – in use and in storage.
Note: (Author, 2021; Author, 2021)
Page | 63
Figure 30: Issuing of blue bucket rejection notice.
Note: (Author, 2021)
6.1.3: Blue Bucket Rejection Notices
Current blue bucket rejection notices used by caretaking staff use item descriptions that
match the descriptions of items found in the non-hazardous waste infographic (Figure 26).
Facilities Management implemented a phased information campaign, distributing infographics
to labs through email and notification of a website address to find the given information.
Caretaking staff are provided the same infographic and are given training to identify slight
variants of the items pictured. For labs with not accepted items found in the blue bucket, a
rejection notice is prepared and documented for Facilities Management. The collection process
highlights the critical importance of adequate training of caretakers performing the collection.
Poor training can result in the continued collection of not accepted items, undermining the
intentions of a waste management program. Facilities Management has observed some early
Page | 64
success to the implementation of the phased infographic and subsequent issuing of rejection
notices as blue bucket disposal amounts in the months following showed an estimated 50%
decrease. A more formal audit process performed on a sample of labs can be used to verify
these observations. An audit of this nature was not conducted for this report.
Issuance of rejection notices is limited to superficial observation of blue bucket
contents, as caretakers are instructed not to root through blue buckets or handle contents of
the blue bucket. Infractions notices can also be issued if materials posing safety hazards are
found within blue buckets. An example of this is documented occasions when needle syringes
have been found in blue buckets. If blue bucket contents have already been emptied into the
main collection bin, no processes have been developed to retrieve these items in order to
reduce contamination found in blue bucket waste and also return materials that pose a
potential safety hazard to their labs of origin. Developing processes for tracking and retrieving
contamination items can serve a larger purpose too of decreasing contamination in blue bucket
waste and other waste streams. Rejection notices issued currently are in paper form, with a
carbon copy notification form kept on record for Facilities Management. This allows for
adequate follow up with labs found with infractions. The Chematix notification system also
provides opportunity to issue rejection notices and infraction notices electronically. Developing
processes of mandatory follow up when rejection notices or infractions are issued allows for
quicker adoption of waste management protocols.
An additional level of verification has been suggested by Facilities Management, with
the use of blue bucket sign off forms. These forms could be done in paper or electronic form,
and serve as a check from within the lab prior to a blue bucket being placed outside the lab for
Page | 65
pick up. The sign off form would have the signatory verify that no unacceptable items are
within the blue bucket and all items are free of contaminants. Another potential improvement
on blue bucket collection is random spot checking of blue bucket preparation and issuing of
commendations (such as a merit sticker) as a means of positive reinforcement of compliance to
the program. Consistent adherence to protocols and absence of rejection notices or infractions
can also be a component of sustainable lab certification.
6.2: Cost and Effort Analysis
Moore and Boldero (2017) examined the adoption of pro-environment behaviour
change as it relates to the cost and effort of the activity in question. Using this conceptual
framework, the author of this report presents a comparison of potential sustainable lab
activities using a cost and effort matrix analysis (Figure 31). 23 sustainable lab activities were
chosen to analyze, arising from results of the lab waste reduction survey and from sustainable
lab activities conducted at UA and UBC:
1. Re-administer waste reduction survey
2. Change blue bucket collection interval to bi-weekly
3. Facilities sends periodic reminder emails of waste sorting protocols
4. Print and attach blue bucket infographic to all blue buckets
5. Implement "blue bucket is ready" sign-off sheets
6. Promote and implement Chill Up Challenge
7. Re-design and implement revised blue bucket sorting protocols
8. Design and implement lab waste reduction competitions and recognition awards
9. Promote and implement Shut the Sash program
Page | 66
10. Allocate Facilities staff time to answer questions specifically about non-hazardous lab
waste
11. Education campaign to differentiate hazardous and non-hazardous lab waste
12. Facilities staff pursue increased recycling options from vendors
13. Education campaign for green purchasing
14. Implement specific waste stream for recycling lab glass
15. Create and distribute videos demonstrating proper sorting of non-hazardous lab waste
16. Educational campaign to encourage lab sustainability. Implement informal commitment
system for labs to participate
17. Organize coalition of labs to lobby manufacturers to increase EPR considerations in
manufacturing lab supplies
18. Collect data from labs implementing specific energy saving measures
19. Organize and implement lab equipment re-use and surplus sale program
20. Collect data from labs implementing specific waste reduction/diversion measures
21. Design and implement multi-lab washing and sanitizing procedures for like materials
22. Administer and collect sustainability data on labs implementing a green labs certification
program
23. Implement plan to maximally replace single-use lab supplies with multi-use items
Page | 67
Figure 31: Cost and Effort analysis of multiple sustainable lab activities.
Note: (Author, 2021). WRS = Waste Reduction Survey; BBC = Blue Bucket Collection interval; RE = Reminder Emails; BBI = Blue Bucket Infographic; BBR = Blue Bucket is Ready; CUC = Chill Up Challenge; BBS = Blue Bucket Sorting; WRC = Waste Reduction Competition; STS = Shut The Sash; FSQ = Facilities Staff to answer Questions; HNH = Hazardous and Non-Hazardous education campaign; IRV = Increased Recycling from Vendors; GP = Green Purchasing; RLG = Recycling Lab Glass; VS = Videos demonstrating Sorting; ELS = Encourage Lab Sustainability; EPR = Extended Producer Responsibility; DES = Data for Energy Saving; LER = Lab Equipment Reuse; DWR = Data for Waste Reduction; MWS = Multi-lab Washing and Sanitizing; GLC = Green Labs Certification; RSU = Replace Single Use items.
Cost is represented in the horizontal axis, with activities requiring a higher financial cost located
further to the right of the matrix. For the purpose of the cost analysis, activities requiring higher
commitment and human resource capacity from UC Facilities Management were considered
activities requiring higher cost. Effort is represented in the vertical axis, with activities requiring
1:WRS
2:BBC
3:RE
4:BBI
5:BBR
6:CUC
7:BBS 8:WRC
9:STS
10:FSQ
11:HNH
12:IRV
13:GP
14:RLG
15:VS
16:ELS 17:EPR
18:DES
19: LER
20:DWR21:MWS
22:GLC
23:RSU
Effo
rt /
Lab
Co
mm
itm
ent
Cost / Facilities Commitment
Sustainable Lab Activity Cost and Effort Analysis
Page | 68
more time and decided commitment located in the upper portion of the matrix. For the
purpose of the effort analysis, activities requiring higher commitment from lab workers and lab
managers were considered activities requiring higher effort. It is important to note that
comparisons in each category are subjective measures, based on conceptual estimates of costs
and effort. No formal financial or time costing of these activities has been conducted.
Figure 32 categorizes sustainable lab activities into four categories based on their
placement in the cost and effort matrix analysis. Low Cost Activities can be considered ‘easy-
win’ activities for UC Facilities Management to adopt. Actions such as re-administration of the
waste reduction survey in order to collect additional lab waste data from more faculties are low
cost activities that can better inform lab waste reduction activities. Multiple activities related to
UC blue buckets, such as requiring a ‘blue bucket is ready’ sign-off or altering blue bucket
collection interval are relatively low cost to implement because of the established systems in
place for the blue buckets. Similarly, emails from Facilities reminding lab workers of correct
sorting protocols are low cost because of the established communication systems. Lab-centric
Activities are more difficult to implement, but relative to other potential activities, are low cost
activities which can produce a high return. Promoting and implementing programs such as the
Chill Up Challenge and the Shut the Sash program requires production of educational materials,
promotion through electronic messaging, social media and print media, and a participation
drive involving an informal or formal commitment from labs to participate in these programs.
Educational campaigns promoting green purchasing principles would involve higher amounts of
research for Facilities to produce educational material, as well as higher commitment from labs
to understand which types of lab supplies can be purchased with green procurement as the
Page | 69
guiding principle. Education Oriented Activities are driven primarily by UC Facilities, as these
activities involve researching and developing implementation procedures and designing
promotional materials. Items in this category include redesigning the blue bucket sorting
protocols, pursuing vendors to find more recycling options for specific lab supplies, and creating
videos demonstrating proper sorting of non-hazardous lab waste. Included also in this category
is allocating Facilities staff time and expertise to answer questions specifically related to lab
waste sorting. The final category of Institution Sustainability Strategy Driven are activities
involving both higher cost and higher effort. These are activities, such as large scale
implementations of green lab certification, tracking and utilizing data for energy saving or
waste reduction activities, as well as maximal reduction of single-use plastics in lab settings.
Such activities are likely to require strategy level decisions flowing out of the institution’s
sustainability strategy, and a wide-scale implementation in order to be cost effective and
produce effective sustainability outcomes.
Page | 70
Figure 32: Categorization of sustainable lab activities as related to cost and effort matrix
analysis.
Note: (Author, 2021). WRS = Waste Reduction Survey; BBC = Blue Bucket Collection interval; RE = Reminder Emails; BBI = Blue Bucket Infographic; BBR = Blue Bucket is Ready; CUC = Chill Up Challenge; BBS = Blue Bucket Sorting; WRC = Waste Reduction Competition; STS = Shut The Sash; FSQ = Facilities Staff to answer Questions; HNH = Hazardous and Non-Hazardous education campaign; IRV = Increased Recycling from Vendors; GP = Green Purchasing; RLG = Recycling Lab Glass; VS = Videos demonstrating Sorting; ELS = Encourage Lab Sustainability; EPR = Extended Producer Responsibility; DES = Data for Energy Saving; LER = Lab Equipment Reuse; DWR = Data for Waste Reduction; MWS = Multi-lab Washing and Sanitizing; GLC = Green Labs Certification; RSU = Replace Single Use items.
6.3: Sustainable Lab Certification Discussion
As discussed in the 6.2: Cost and Effort Analysis section, establishment of a fully
implemented green labs certification program at UC would likely be situated on the higher cost
1:WRS
2:BBC
3:RE
4:BBI
5:BBR
6:CUC
7:BBS 8:WRC
9:STS
10:FSQ
11:HNH
12:IRV
13:GP
14:RLG
15:VS
16:ELS 17:EPR
18:DES
19: LER
20:DWR21:MWS
22:GLC
23:RSU
Effo
rt /
Lab
Co
mm
itm
ent
Cost / Facilities Commitment
Sustainable Lab Activity Cost and Effort Categorization
Low cost activities
Lab-centricactivities
Institution sustainability strategy driven
Education oreinted activities
Page | 71
and higher effort space of the cost-effort matrix. However, smaller implementations of a
limited number of sustainability activities can also be considered if UC was to consider adopting
a sustainable lab certification program. An examination of existing certification systems such as
those offered by University of Alberta (University of Alberta, 2021a), University of Toronto
(University of Toronto, 2021), My Green Lab (My Green Lab, 2020b), along with the existing
sustainability badges system offered by UC (University of Calgary Sustainability, 2021c) gives a
useful list of activities that could be chosen from when establishing an initial certification
program. Below, the author lists some program elements estimated to create a viable and
impactful certification program.
• Communication
o Inform all lab members of agreed actions to increase sustainability.
o Review sustainable actions regularly as a lab.
o Regularly check for Facilities updates on waste management protocols.
• Energy
o Shut the Sash or turn off fume hoods when not in use.
o Chill Up freezers to run only as cold as required (ULT freezers set to −700𝐶 or
regular freezers set to −170𝐶).
o Identify equipment that does not need to be left on when not in use.
• Equipment and Purchasing
o Review and implement green procurement principles whenever possible.
o Prioritize purchase of equipment with a third party sustainability rating.
o Register equipment with Supply Chain Management.
Page | 72
o Only order chemicals and supplies in amounts needed instead of buying in
excess.
o Regularly review inventory of lab supplies and equipment. Prepare underutilized
items for surplus sale or exchange with other labs.
• Water
o Install water saving devices when possible.
o Run dishwashers only when full.
• Waste Management
o Follow all safety protocols to remove contamination from waste materials to
prepare for recycling.
o Perform internal waste audits and discuss ways to maximally divert waste.
o Examine lab procedures to maximally reduce single-use items.
o Re-use lab supplies whenever possible.
o Recycle all applicable glass containers.
o Recycle all applicable plastics, cardboard, and metal.
o Compost all non-hazardous organic waste.
• Chemical Management
o Choose less hazardous or green options when available.
• Innovation
o Regularly discuss ways to innovate within the lab.
Implementation of a sustainable lab certification program allows for adjustment and
growth over time. Tracking the progress of labs also allows for data collection on sustainable
Page | 73
development metrics such as energy use reductions and waste diversion. Establishing a
voluntary sign up model allows for steady growth of the program and the ability to adjust the
program as potential improvements are discovered. Offering tiered certification (see report
section 2.1: Sustainable Labs) builds the incentive of continuous improvement and education
directly into the administration of the program. Also, aligning goals of the certification program
to match with the institution’s sustainability strategy and other adjunct strategies, such as the
UC Zero Waste strategic plan allows for addressing sustainability in a context specific to an
institution.
Page | 74
Chapter 7: Conclusions
7.1: Key Recommendations
Activities surrounding lab waste reduction will ideally flow out of a university wide
sustainability strategy. The UC Sustainability report recognizes waste diversion as a key element
to the university’s sustainability strategy (University of Calgary Sustainability, 2021a).
Recognition of UC as an institution that conducts research, as well as an institution that acts
sustainably leads to the conclusion that all research should strive to be done sustainably also.
Following such reasoning allows UC to become a leader in sustainability research and in
sustainable research.
This report is designed as a best-practice manual for waste diversion and sustainable lab
practices. As such, key recommendations arise from evidence gathered from the qualitative
data gathering methods and quantitative estimation of potential benefits outlined in the
previous sections. Recommendations are considered ‘Actions’ with the end goal of
transformation, and they organized into four bucket types (Figure 33):
• Behaviour change – a top down and bottom up commitment to change that affects all
levels of an organization.
• Clarity and transparency – offering transparency in waste collection protocols in order
for participants to be informed about the challenge that is being addressed.
• Diversion – Zero Waste activities aiming to increase waste diversion as much as possible
with as many options as possible and with as much creativity as possible.
• Education – online and visual media (posters and videos) to disseminate protocols and
regulations.
Page | 75
Figure 33: Four recommendation theme categories.
7.1.1: Behaviour Change
Goal setting. Lab certification levels can inspire group action. Offering badges or criteria
specific to running a green lab can easily fit into the existing UC sustainable offices badge
system. With consultation of other green labs programs, criteria for an in-house developed
certification system could be completed in a short time frame. In-house developed certification
has the advantage of design that fits the local context, continued consultation, and also allows
for increasing level of sustainability goals when previous goals have been met. Even without an
in-house produced certification system, labs can be encouraged to seek third party certification
through My Green Lab or other organizations at a cost of less than $500 per lab.
Encourage energy saving behaviour. Low effort and low cost behaviours such as ‘Shut
the Sash’ or switching off lab equipment when not in use can have measurable impacts on
energy use. Increased awareness of sustainability actions through campus wide action can pave
the way to increased energy reductions and decreased energy costs.
Page | 76
Change through environmental design. Design of shared lab spaces can encourage the
sharing and expanded use of lab equipment. Placement of equipment that can be shared
among labs in a central location allows for easier collaboration and usage.
Proactive and reactive compliance measures. Positive reinforcement measures (such as
commendation stickers) can commend the efforts of labs that are working well to act in
sustainable ways. Reactive compliance measures (such as infraction notices) are necessary to
ensure proper compliance with waste and safety protocols and to ensure minimization of waste
stream contamination.
7.1.2: Clarity
Blue bucket destination. Comments from the survey show evidence of misconception
regarding the destination of blue bucket waste. The blue bucket colouring is unfortunate as
blue is strongly associated with mixed recycling. Assigning a different colour to the blue bucket
program may help to clarify the nature of the program, and the associated cost of changing the
blue buckets may be offset by the cost savings of fewer hauls of the blue bucket collection bin.
Even if blue buckets remain, clear messaging surrounding the main goal of the blue bucket
being caretaker safety, with the final destination of the blue bucket materials is the landfill will
likely result in lab workers making greater efforts to utilize mixed recycling bins whenever
possible.
Communicate successes and failures. Building a sustainable lab requires joint effort.
Regular communication of waste diversion goals, sorting successes, and sorting failures will
build group awareness.
Page | 77
Adequate training. Adherence to protocols requires training on both the waste
production and the waste collection side. Establishing clear waste sorting locations in labs will
clarify lab procedures for all workers. Adequate training of caretaking staff is necessary to
establish consistency of waste collection and minimization of contamination.
7.1.3: Diversion
Explore new recycling options. The survey revealed a large desire to find new options
for recycling. A constantly evolving list of potentially recyclable materials will increase
confidence in Facilities Management and increase awareness of lab sustainability.
Reuse, repurpose, or remarket. Coordination between labs using similar equipment
could largely reduce duplication of equipment. Organizing regular equipment swap events can
be useful for extending the use of lab equipment. Online platforms, similar to other web
marketing platforms can be used to remarket equipment for parties outside of the university.
Establishing a student lab can also be an additional avenue of extending the use of equipment.
Minimize by miniaturizing. An important green chemistry and green biology concept
striving to reduce size of experiments. Conducting procedures on a small scale when possible,
and minimizing the use of supplies, reagents and discarded material as much as possible.
Diversion by design. Adherence and maintenance of lab certification levels can
incorporate diversion principles such as assessing lab procedures for potential for incorporating
diversion activities, or formal procedures of sorting glass and plastic waste appropriately will
maximize waste diversion. Designing blue bucket rejection notices from caretakers to be issued
for labs including too many recyclable items can also increase waste diversion.
Page | 78
7.1.4: Education
Visual media. Videos and posters communicate Facilities commitment to waste
reduction. Educational material can challenge labs to become certified, participate in energy
saving challenges, or instruct on proper sorting of potentially recyclable materials. Making
videos and posters easily available online is an effective method of distributing educational
materials. Printed posters in labs and hallways can also increase awareness of waste diversion
initiatives.
Green procurement availability. Information campaigns can inform labs of existing
green procurement options. Preferred vendors and green procurement program workshops can
be offered, and inquiries can be made to supply chain management about green procurement
scores of various vendor bids for RFPs.
What’s mine is mine and yours. Encouraging equipment reuse through surplus sales or
equipment exchange events will increase awareness for waste minimization. Establishing
shared agreements for use of equipment can alter the prevailing narrative of the need to buy
new or the ‘fend for yourself’ mentality.
7.2: Limitations and Future Research
In many respects, the short timeframe of this project is not adequate time to perform
proper quantitative methods such as quantifying annual waste production, accounting of waste
composition from labs, and measuring effects of implementing waste reduction protocols.
Going forward, it is the author’s hope that the existing frameworks used for tracking and
reporting waste diversion can also be analyzed for trends after the implementation of some
recommendations found in this report. Preparing an application for a sustainability grant could
Page | 79
fund human resources for waste audits of blue buckets, mixed recycling, and landfill waste from
labs. Sustainability grants can also fund the work of developing a local lab certification system
that is specific to the context of UC labs. The establishment of a local lab certification system
would require human resources to administrate and regulate the certification items.
Encouraging the adoption of third party lab certification will require fewer local human
resources while still expanding the establishment of sustainable lab practices.
Another future research recommendation will be the administration of the waste
reduction survey in an upcoming semester when labs are at a fuller capacity. The current survey
results are more heavily indicative of lab activities at the UC Foothills Health Campus. Analysis
of comparative responses between responses from Foothills Health Campus and Main Campus
reveal few differences, except in rate of blue bucket filling time. However, gaining a larger
representation from multiple faculties will ensure accurate assessment of data gathered from
the survey.
A final future research recommendation is exploring the connection points of this
research as it relates to health labs, hospitals, and industry labs. The specialized nature of lab
waste highlights the importance of specialized activities that address waste diversion and
sustainability. Lab sustainability organizations like I2SL and Sustainable Labs Canada can aid in
collaborations and advancement of sustainability activities, and joint partnerships between labs
in varying contexts will continue to strengthen and solidify the growing area of study of lab
waste diversion and sustainable lab activities.
Page | 80
References
Akbari, A., Chandrasekar, S., & Isazadeh, S. (2015a). Laboratory Sustainability Initiative:
Recycling Glass and Plastic Wastes from Research and Teaching Laboratories.
How satisfied are you in the current guides for disposal of materials in
the Blue Bucket? (Note: current guidelines for waste disposal can be
found here: https://www.ucalgary.ca/sustainability/our-sustainable-campus/waste-
and-recycling)
1.00 5.00 2.64 1.17 1.38 75
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 118
# Answer % Count
1 Extremely satisfied 16.00% 12
2 Somewhat satisfied 37.33% 28
3 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 21.33% 16
4 Somewhat dissatisfied 17.33% 13
5 Extremely dissatisfied 8.00% 6
Total 100% 75
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 119
Q12 - Which of the following suggestions would help improve the disposal guide
for the blue bucket? (Check all that apply.)
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 120
# Answer % Count
1 More pictures of acceptable/unacceptable materials 35.71% 50
2 Extra descriptions of acceptable or un-acceptable materials 22.14% 31
3 Fewer descriptions of acceptable and un-acceptable materials 0.71% 1
4 Extra instructions about preparing materials for disposal 17.86% 25
5 Fewer instructions about preparing materials for disposal 0.71% 1
6 Additional guidance on which materials are hazardous and which are
non-hazardous. 12.14% 17
7 Other: 10.71% 15
Total 100% 140
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 121
Q12_7_TEXT - Other:
Other: - Text
We do not have a use for blue buckets.
maybe some info about where the blue bucket material goes
Expand the acceptable materials..some items are never disposed of and others that qualify for trash are actual #5 PP
Less bins would be helpful. There are too many bins and it is too confusing
The blue buckets have become a nuisance since the change of materials that can be disposed of. Even with the pictures and instructions that have been provided, I find myself constantly fishing items out that don't belong. This is more of an issue with our students and staff even with bringing this up on multiple occasions at lab meetings. It will take a while for everyone to get used to what is acceptable or not in the blue buckets.
n/a
Need to improve the recycling abilities. To many materials that actually can be recycled are not and end up in the kandfill
Not changing them constantly
Get rid of the blue bucket program and integrate it with yellow buckets. Almost nothing is allowed in the blue buckets anyways, so all we use it for is serological pipets and pipet tips.
There should be a place to dispose of clean falcon tubes and eppendorf tubes as right now we are told to throw them in the garbage
How to get a Blue Bucket
annual reminders of guidelines. perhaps a refresh of the current documents
It's nice and clear.
Having to consciously subdivide the various disposable lab items according to which container they go in is simply not practical in a busy lab environment. As a consequence, people will be throwing far more potentially recyclable material into the garbage, simply because they don't have the time to sort.
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 122
Q13 - Would you be willing to attend a workshop about proper disposal of non-
hazardous waste?
Note: (Author, 2021)
# Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std
Deviation Variance Count
1
Would you be willing to attend a workshop about
proper disposal of non-hazardous waste? -
Selected Choice
1.00 3.00 1.73 0.66 0.44 75
Note: (Author, 2021)
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 38.67% 29
2 No 49.33% 37
3 Other: 12.00% 9
Total 100% 75
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 123
Q13_3_TEXT - Other:
Other: - Text
Blue program does not work well at Spy Hill, i.e. no regular blue bin pick-ups scheduled due to physical location
written description which I can refer back to is appreciated
Not needed
time wastage
Maybe
Online training is better
online on demand only, max 45 min
Will send HQP
Yes if it is online
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 124
Q14 - Would you be willing to have staff from Facilities perform a visual waste
audit at your lab to help design more specific programs for addressing common
items being discarded?
Note: (Author, 2021)
# Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std
Deviation Variance Count
1
Would you be willing to have staff from Facilities
perform a visual waste audit at your lab to help
design more specific programs for addressing
common items being discarded? - Selected
Choice
1.00 3.00 1.30 0.51 0.26 74
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 125
# Answer % Count
1 Yes 72.97% 54
2 No 24.32% 18
3 Other: 2.70% 2
Total 100% 74
Note: (Author, 2021)
Q14_3_TEXT - Other:
Other: - Text
That sounds like an overkill, perhaps a Zoom session where I could show the space?
No, we already follow the rules.
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 126
Q15 - How has COVID-19 affected the volume of non-hazardous waste
generated at your lab?
Note: (Author, 2021)
# Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std
Deviation Variance Count
1
How has COVID-19 affected the volume of
non-hazardous waste generated at your lab?
1.00 3.00 1.63 0.61 0.37 75
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 127
# Answer % Count
1 Decrease (less waste generated than typical) 44.00% 33
2 Relatively little (No change or less than 5% increase) 49.33% 37
6 A specific Facilities staff member to direct questions to regarding waste
disposal 17.05% 15
7 A workshop explaining waste reduction targets as they relate to
University labs 6.82% 6
8 Other: 15.91% 14
Total 100% 88
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 132
Q17_8_TEXT - Other:
Other: - Text
Expand the recyclable acceptable items 50 mL PP centrifuge tubes are Recyclable and yet we have to put them into trash..all paper towels should be placed in compostables not trash..paper and small cardboard has to go into recycling not into trash..just take a walk in the hallways and see cardboard glove boxes, plastic film, paper towels, paper and magazines piled up in trash bins
Blue bucket program at Spy Hill is barely visible due to no regular pick-ups. Unless there is better inclusion for this location, the blue bin program will have poor uptake
Can only pick one, so here are the three choices: extra posters, reminder emails, specific facilities staff member
I can only check one option, but would like regular waste audits, a staff member to direct questions to, videos, and the workshop.
This field only allows me to check one. So here are my three: 1.Extra posters showing waste disposal guidelines 2. Training seminars teaching on waste disposal guidelines 3. A workshop explaining waste reduction targets as they relate to University labs.
Won't allow more than 1 choice. Other 2 are posters and workshop
It doesn't let me pick 3 only 1
Could not pick three so: extra posters, specific facilities staff member to direct questions, and a workshop
C, D, F
Students should be trained by their supervisor or at least the Professor needs to emphasize the importance of proper waste disposal. Otherwise all your emails, audits and so forth are meaningless.
can't check more than one-extra posters, videos
I was only able to select one option. Videos would also be helpful
can't check 3
there are enough workshops and videos and trainings. posters placed at dusposal points and a person to direct inquiries to would help most
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 133
Q18 - Let us know any other concerns you have or opportunities to improve
management of non-hazardous waste at University research labs.
Let us know any other concerns you have or opportunities to improve management of non-hazardous waste at University research labs.
how does putting it in the blue bucket to protect caretakers divert clean plastic waste from landfills?
Not all labs are research labs. We are a service lab.
The number of types of waste is too many and is not feasible. We waste a lot more and throw a lot into the garbage that could and should be recycled.
Resources in research labs are limited (time being one) anything that reduces the resource cost associated with achieving waste reduction targets will encourage participation.
too much waste is directed to the land fill, an updated recycling program should be implemented at the university
Cell culture media bottles are currently not accepted (according to my knowledge) but should be.
For many years we disposed of clean glass and plastic in blue buckets. I was under the impression that they were being recycled but then told by someone that they just went into regular trash anyway. I'm not sure what to believe so some information on where the trash goes after it's been picked up from our lab would be helpful and appreciated to know that we aren't just wasting our time.
The above question won't allow me to select three answers. My answers are; Training seminars, Extra posters and a specific Facilities staff member to direct questions
Would be nice to have small compost bins in labs eg: for paper towels, more clear information of if we can recycle plastic packaging
As mentioned need better more extended recycling possibilities. To much stuff that can be recycled is thrown into the landfill waste stream
Place poster on the outside of blue bucket describing visually what is allowed in blue bucket
New guidelines make for a lot of plastic to be thrown in regular waste. How is this good for the environment!
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 134
(Continued) Q18 - Let us know any other concerns you have or opportunities
to improve management of non-hazardous waste at University research labs.
Very few are environmentally conscious. I am tired of resorting others waste. Taking paper out of waste. etc. Until people care, rules do not matter unless they are enforced by your immediate employer or supervisor (Not the Lab Manager but from the P.I.) This has to instilled into people and must come from examples from the top down.
We produce a lot of plastic waste (tip boxes, containers, etc) and the current containers are not really enough to collect all of it.
I think we can recycle more like tubes and pipets used for non hazardous buffers
All university groups should be included: faculty, staff, and students, otherwise it will not work
Now that eppendorfs and conical can no longer go in the blue buckets, our trash volume has drastically increased. Is there any way to recycle these?
-
I would like to understand why the materials that can go into a blue bucket are so limitied (only 'pointy' plastics). Why not all clean plastics??
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 135
Appendix C: Disposal Guide Survey Question
Q12: Which of the following suggestions would help improve the disposal guide for the blue
bucket? (Check all that apply.)
Survey choice results
Note: (Author, 2021)
Commentary on Survey Results
• Having pictures of acceptable/unacceptable materials is the highest request, followed
by extra descriptions of materials
• Very few people request for less information
• Choice 3 and 5 are requests for extra instructions and extra guidance, but these choices
are not as highly requested as more pictures and more descriptions of acceptable
materials
13%
24%
1%
36%
1%
43%
69%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other
Guidance on hazmat/non-hazmat items
Fewer instructions for preparation
More instructions for preparation
Fewer descriptions
Extra descriptions
Additional Pictures
Percentage of Responses
Top three choices to improve Blue Bucket disposal guidelines
Page | 136
Comments from “Other” text box
Disposal Guide Other Original Comment Summary Category
It's nice and clear. Approval
Need to improve the recycling abilities. To many
materials that actually can be recycled are not and end
up in the kandfill Request for more recycling options
annual reminders of guidelines. perhaps a refresh of the
current documents Better education
Having to consciously subdivide the various disposable
lab items according to which container they go in is
simply not practical in a busy lab environment. As a
consequence, people will be throwing far more
potentially recyclable material into the garbage, simply
because they don't have the time to sort. Reduce complexity of waste sorting
Get rid of the blue bucket program and integrate it with
yellow buckets. Almost nothing is allowed in the blue
buckets anyways, so all we use it for is serological pipets
and pipet tips. Integrate with haz-mat program
Not changing them constantly Reduce rate of change
Expand the acceptable materials..some items are never
disposed of and others that qualify for trash are actual
#5 PP Request for more recycling options
maybe some info about where the blue bucket material
goes Clarity and transparency needed
How to get a Blue Bucket Participation request
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 137
Comments from “Other” text box (continued)
Disposal Guide Other Original Comment Summary Category
There should be a place to dispose of clean falcon tubes
and eppendorf tubes as right now we are told to throw
them in the garbage Request for more recycling options
Less bins would be helpful. There are too many bins and
it is too confusing Reduce complexity of waste sorting
The blue buckets have become a nuisance since the
change of materials that can be disposed of. Even with
the pictures and instructions that have been provided, I
find myself constantly fishing items out that don't
belong. This is more of an issue with our students and
staff even with bringing this up on multiple occasions at
lab meetings. It will take a while for everyone to get used
to what is acceptable or not in the blue buckets.
Reduce complexity of waste sorting
/ Reduce rate of change
Note: (Author, 2021)
Commentary on “Other” Comments
• Multiple requests to decrease complexity – either by integration with haz-mat program
or less sorting on the user side
• Some comments showing dislike for the rate of change of the program
• Request for more recycling options shows up in this question as well as in the next
comment section.
• Request for transparency of the end destination of waste shows up in this question and
in the next comment section.
• More sorting does make destination of waste easier to know
Page | 138
Appendix D: Non-Hazardous Waste Protocol Question
Q17: Which of the following suggestions would help most with understanding non-hazardous
waste disposal protocols? (Check the one (1) most useful suggestion.)
Survey Choice Results
Note: (Author, 2021)
Commentary:
• Total of 56 responses that are not “Other”
14%
8%
26%
10%
11%
12%
18%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Dedicated staff member
Reduction targets workshop
Poster
Waste Audit
Reminder emails
Disposal training seminar
Video
Percent of total votes
Most Helpful Way to Improve Non-Hazardous Waste Protocols
Page | 139
Comments from open text box:
Original Comments Summary Category
For many years we disposed of clean glass and plastic in blue buckets. I was under the impression that they were being recycled but then told by someone that they just went into regular trash anyway. I'm not sure what to believe so some information on where the trash goes after it's been picked up from our lab would be helpful and appreciated to know that we aren't just wasting our time.
Clarity and transparency needed how does putting it in the blue bucket to protect caretakers divert clean plastic waste from landfills?
Blue bucket program at Spy Hill is barely visible due to no regular pick-ups. Unless there is better inclusion for this location, the blue bin program will have poor uptake. Not all labs are research labs. We are a service lab. Recognition of unique needs
Place poster on the outside of blue bucket describing visually what is allowed in blue bucket
Better education All university groups should be included: faculty, staff, and students, otherwise it will not work
We produce a lot of plastic waste (tip boxes, containers, etc) and the current containers are not really enough to collect all of it. Larger collection bins
Resources in research labs are limited (time being one) anything that reduces the resource cost associated with achieving waste reduction targets will encourage participation.
Reduce complexity of waste sorting
Students should be trained by their supervisor or at least the Professor needs to emphasize the importance of proper waste disposal. Otherwise all your emails, audits and so forth are meaningless. Very few are environmentally conscious. I am tired of resorting others waste. Taking paper out of waste. etc. Until people care, rules do not matter unless they are enforced by your immediate employer or supervisor (Not the Lab Manager but from the P.I.) This has to instilled into people and must come from examples from the top down. Skepticsm
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 140
Comments from open text box (continued):
Original Comments Summary Category
Now that eppendorfs and conical can no longer go in the blue buckets, our trash volume has drastically increased. Is there any way to recycle these?
Request for more recycling options
I think we can recycle more like tubes and pipets used for non hazardous buffers
As mentioned need better more extended recycling possibilities. To much stuff that can be recycled is thrown into the landfill waste stream
Cell culture media bottles are currently not accepted (according to my knowledge) but should be.
Would be nice to have small compost bins in labs eg: for paper towels, more clear information of if we can recycle plastic packaging
I would like to understand why the materials that can go into a blue bucket are so limitied (only 'pointy' plastics). Why not all clean plastics??
Expand the recyclable acceptable items 50 mL PP centrifuge tubes are Recyclable and yet we have to put them into trash..all paper towels should be placed in compostables not trash..paper and small cardboard has to go into recycling not into trash..just take a walk in the hallways and see cardboard glove boxes, plastic film, paper towels, paper and magazines piled up in trash bins
Petri dishes used for fish embryo development should be accepted
Why are caps not accepted? What about soft plastics like single use wrappers
New guidelines make for a lot of plastic to be thrown in regular waste. How is this good for the environment!
Too much landfill waste (request for more waste diversion options
too much waste is directed to the land fill, an updated recycling program should be implemented at the university
The number of types of waste is too many and is not feasible. We waste a lot more and throw a lot into the garbage that could and should be recycled.
Note: (Author, 2021)
Page | 141
Appendix E: Educational Material Samples
Page | 142
Page | 143
Note: (University of Calgary Facilities Management - Caretaking, 2021)
