All Recycling Program

In 2010 University of Cincinnati switched to a new recycling program, known as All Recycling.  Members placed All Recycling containers all throughout campus to promote its new recycling program.  The All Recycling containers located throughout campus carry the following labels to identify their purpose (See below).  Since 2010, UC has seen an increase in the amount of recycling and the number of trashcans located on campus.      

Logo found on recycling bins (Recycling @ UC)

List of recyclable materials (Recycling @ UC) Click for acceptable items for ALL RECYCLE program

In 2010, the University of Cincinnati recycled just over 4,600 tons of material, an increase of about 23 percent over the year before when UC recycled more than 3,700 tons of materials (Recycling @ UC).  We can thank the new All Recycle program for this dramatic increase.   According to Rick Wiggins, director of UC Facilities Management, UC currently diverts 65 percent of its waste stream into recycling, with the goal of taking that figure to 70 percent by 2019 if not sooner (M.B. Reilly).  “I’m anticipating that 2011 should be even better.  The 2010 rise in recycling occurred even though we only had our All Recycling program in place for six months of last year.  So, in 2011, we’ll have our All Recycling program up and running for the entire year.  That should bring even better results,” he stated. 

The overall meaning of this program is so that UC can decrease the amount of waste sent to the landfills.  In the past decade UC has reduced that amount by nearly 50 percent.  In addition to the All Recycling program, UC has a few other programs, one being the Bearcat Recycling program. 

   Bearcat Recycling

Bearcat Recycling is the University of Cincinnati’s program to recycle at special events and athletics games on campus.  This program started in 2007 as “Tailgate Recycling.”  Volunteers’ main focus was to recycle during tailgating at home football games.  By 2008, this program expanded to include recycling during the games and it 2009 it expanded to other large events such as the Sigma Sigma Carnival. 

With help from the new 2010 All Recycling program, the Bearcat Recycling was expanded to include all special events and athletics games on the Uptown Campus.  Most importantly, this was accomplished because of a grant from the ODNR for additional carts and bins and funding from student activity fees with enabled the Office of Sustainability to hire twelve Sustainability Advocates to staff the program (Bearcat Recycling).    

Bearcat Recycling Stats and contact info for recycling at a specific event (Bearcat Recycling)

Interviews

Carlton Brett, University of Cincinnati, Professor of Geology 

After interviewing Carlton Brett, who has been a professor at the university for many years, he was able to shed some light regarding recycling here at the university.  He stated that, "Recycling is a great thing at the university and the All Recycling Program is very beneficial to the campus."  In addition, he said, "people are starting to not use the recycling bins as much as they did in 2010 and 2011."  This made me realize that a new approach should be taken to get people to start using the bins like they once did.  A good idea could be to make the trashcans a fluorescent color to get peoples attention.

Patrick Cullen, University of Cincinnati Geology Student

Patrick Cullen has been a student here at the University for 4 years, and will be graduating this Spring.  The first question that I asked Pat, was if we was aware of the All Recycling program, his response was no, but he did say that he uses the recycling bins every now and then.  He also stated, "I think recycling is a great idea for the university.."   

(Interviewed with Cheyenne Hassan on 3-7-13) 

Work Cited 

"Bearcat Recycling." UC.edu. N.p.. Web. 8 Mar 2013. <http://www.uc.edu/af/pdc/sustainability/campus_initiatives/recycling_and_waste/bearcat_recycling.html>. 

Brett, Carlton, and Patrick Cullen. Personal Interview. 7 3 2013.

"Recycling @ UC." Facilities Management. University of Cincinnati. Web. 8 Mar 2013. <http://www.uc.edu/af/facilities/services/recycling.html>. 

Reilly, M. B. "Recycling Grows at UC – By Tons at a Time." UC News. 20 4 2011: n. page. Print. <http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=13485>.

  

The Hamilton County Recycling and Solid Waste District (HCRSWD) is a County organization responsible for ensuring that the County achieves State required goals for recycling and waste reduction. The District accomplishes these goals through the implementation of waste reduction programs directed to residents, communities, businesses, and schools.The video below was pulled from the organizations Youtube homepage – it’s a bit cheesy, but worthy video on how to properly recycle (HamCoRecycling Youtube video).

Under the business tab on the HCRSWD website there’s a page titled - “Environmental Compliance Collaborative.”  The Environmental Compliance Collaborative is a group of local manufacturing representatives who meet regularly to  network, gain information, discuss ideas, and explore solutions to environmental regulatory compliance.  Federal, state, and local environmental regulations pertaining to air, water, and hazardous wastes are discussed by regulatory agency representatives.  The meetings are held at Tech Solve (see below for more information). The goal of the meetings is to better inform manufacturers so mistakes are avoided.





Screenshot showing TechSolve’s motives, meeting information, and contact information(Hamilton County Recycling and Solid Waste District)

HCRSWD has a Twitter (@HamCoRecycling) and a Facebook account.  They post imporant videos, meetings, and articles regarding environmental management.  Social media helps to spread the word and collaborate with other people.

Facebook page for Hamilton County Recycling and Solid Waste District (Facebook) 

Work Cited

Hamilton County Recycling and Solid Waste District. N.p.. Web. 1 Mar 2013. <http://hamiltoncountyrecycles.org/>.

HamCoRecycling: Recycling is Doggone Easy!. Youtube.com 1 March 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8ivSUumVks 

Facebook. Hamilton County Recycling and Solid Waste District Home page. 1 March 2013.  http://hamiltoncountyrecycles.org/

Federal and State Environmental Regulations

Pros and Con of Fracking and why it should be Regulated Federally

Brian Snodgrass

            The process known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has truly transformed America’s energy options.  America has seen an increase in natural gas production because it helps reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, it’s cheap, and it could serve the United States energy needs for as much as 100 years.  This sounds great, but hydraulic fracturing brings environmental and different concerns to other states. 

            States against fracking see that it brings pollution and other unpleasant things that come with shale gas production.  It also induces truck traffic, seismic testing, and other industrial uses to docile, rural communities.  In addition, the process uses large quantities of water, wastewater that must be disposed of, and toxic greenhouse gas emissions.  States such as New York have banned some shale gas productions and are waiting until further studies are released.  New Yorkers are worried that drilling will contaminate drinking water that could affect NYC and the whole state.  Pricey Harrison, a Democrat in the North Carolina state legislature states that, “Strong federal oversight is needed to ensure that state regulatory programs have standards that will protect our citizens from harm” (Houston Chronicle).  Many see that federal regulation would best be suited for hydraulic fracturing, but some states view it wouldn’t be a logical decision. 

            States in favor of fracking believe that it will bring thousands of jobs to the state level, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and will spur innovative technologies.  Many people consider that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ federal approach would not be effective.  Republican, Joe Barton claimed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that , “The recognition that it is states rather than the fed that can best regulate their domestic oil and gas productions, especially when it comes to emerging an innovative technologies” (Houston Chronicle). 

            So this brings up the true question, should states or the federal government regulate fracking?  In my opinion, the federal government needs to regulate fracking to some extent.  The EPA needs to pass a law that requires companies to releases a list of chemicals that are being used during the fracking process.  In addition, they need to establish rules for air-emissions that are released during hydraulic fracturing.  Lastly, geologic studies need to be assessed to see if fracking causes earthquakes because quakes cross state boarders, which should be a federal problem.  These proposed laws and assessments are so that the public can be assured safety. 

Abolish the Superfund: Abandoned Waste Dumps Should be a State Regulation

            The Superfund is a federal government regulation that cleans up the nation’s uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.  The EPA has a National Priorities List in which they clean up to protect the environment and the health of the American people.  The Superfund also known as CERCLA was created after the hazardous waste disaster of Love Canal, a neighborhood located in Niagara Falls, New York. 

            The major benefit from the Superfund is the funding.  At the federal level, more money will be allotted for the cleanup of major hazardous sites.  Along with money, the federal government will have the best technology for a proper clean up. 

            I believe that the Superfund should be abolished and put on the shoulders of the states.  The main reason why I think it should be demolished is due to geography.  Abandoned hazardous waste dumps are confinable challenges that should be handled at the state level.  Policy analyst John Donadue states that, “Most waste sites are situated within a single state, and stay there” (Vig and Kraft pg 848 eBOOK).   Relying on the states for cleanup will speed up the process because it’s “right in the their backyard.”  

 Work Cited

Houston Chronicle, Congress debates whether states or feds should regulate fracking.

            Feburary 16, 2013. http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/02/congress-debates-

            whether-states-or-feds-should-regulate-fracking/

Norman Vig and Michael Kraft, Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-

            First Century, 8th Edition (CQ Press, 2010) Ebook pg. 802

REGULATIONS

Why?

I picked this issue because of the recent natural gas boom within the Utica and Marcellus shale group.  Being a geologist, I’m very interested in both of these formations and the economic values that this fissile; clay rich rock has to offer to the world.  The economic aspects of natural gas are very intriguing too.     

 

The Case: To Export Previously Imported Liquefied Natural Gas

The specific article that I chose to elaborate on was regarding exporting previously imported liquefied natural gas from a foreign source.  The company, Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC, submitted an application to export foreign sources in an amount up to 100 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas on a short term basis – 2 year period starting in March of this year out of Cameron Terminal in Cameron, Louisiana.     

 

Eni USA Gas Marketing states that the requested blanket authorization will allow it to sell foreign-sourced, imported LNG in the most competitive market, either by regassifying the imported LNG and selling it in domestic markets where demand warrants, or by storing imported LNG and later selling it in other world markets where demand is higher.  This application also states the in October 2012 the federal government granted another company the permission to export previously imported foreign LNG. 

 

Another key point is that there will be no environmental impact during this 2 year process.  The company states that there will be no new facilities or modifications to any exisiting facilities at the Cameron Terminal.  They also state that the number of LNG exporting carriers will not increase.  Finally, according to this document, “granting this application will not constitute a federal action significantly affecting the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)” (Regulations.gov)

 

 

Work Cited

 

Regulations.Gov.  Published January 22, 2013.  Department of Energy. Vol. 78, no. 14.  Pgs

4400-4401