InSites is a quarterly newsletter that highlights the personalities and projects of the Waste Management Research and Education Institute (WMREI) of The University of Tennessee. WMREI is an affiliate of the EERC.
WMREI was created in 1985 as a state-funded Center of Excellence. Research areas include solid-, hazardous-, and nuclear-waste management; waste minimization; and pollution prevention.
Biotechnology is the focal point of the institute's technical research, while issues involving public attitudes and federal/state policies related to waste-management issues are the primary concerns of the institute's policy research.
For additional information about InSites, or to be added to our mailing list, please write InSites, WMREI, The University of Tennessee, 311 Conference Building, Knoxville, TN 37996-4134, call 865-974-1156, or fax 865-974-1838. Or, if you prefer, e-mail Constance Griffith cbgriffith@utk.edu.
Table of Contents
The Assault on Anthrax,
By Elise LeQuire Big
Hogs, Big Problems, By Lisa Byerley
Gary Aqueous Solutions, By
Lisa Byerley Gary The
Green Seal of Approval Staff
Citings
Genetically
engineered bacteria created by UT researchers may join the fight against
bioterrorism.
By Elise LeQuire
Shortly after the first victim of the anthrax bioterrorist attacks died, it became apparent that current methods of detecting the presence of the deadly spores were inadequate. Conventional testing requires expensive and bulky instrumentation, trained technicians, the use of hazardous chemicals, and above all, too much time.
But a bacteria-hungry organism developed by the University of Tennessee’s (UT) Center for Environmental Biotechnology (CEB) may soon be pressed into service in the war against bioterrorism.
“The U.S. Army is currently asking us to investigate the susceptibility of selected biological warfare agents to bacteriophage infection,” says Steven Ripp, senior research specialist at CEB, the technological arm of UT’s Waste Management Research and Education Institute.
Targeting a Killer
Bacteriophage are naturally occurring viral organisms that feed entirely on bacteria. In nature, this process is invisible to the human eye. In the lab, however, CEB researchers are genetically engineering bacteriophage to emit light in the presence of targeted bacterial pathogens—in this case, anthrax. The luminescent bioreporter, integrated into the bacteriophage, emits a light signal when the bacteriophage infects the target organism.
The living sensor, called a bacteriophage-amplified bioluminescent sensor, is then attached to a microchip designed by researchers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
“The chip is an integrated circuit that contains a photodetector and signal processor,” says Michael Simpson, ORNL research group leader. “The bioreporters do the detecting, and the chip converts the signal. We call the unit a microluminometer.”
The combined package, or bacteriophage sensor, will meet the requirements for economically feasible, instantaneous, on-site contaminant detectors that can be used by untrained personnel. They’re small, 2 to 3 square millimeters—about the size of your little fingernail. They will be cheap to mass produce at around $10 apiece. Their demand for electricity is small, 100 microwatts—about what it takes to power the light-emitting diode on your clock radio. They will provide direct feedback to a simple desktop computer. And because of their low cost, a large number of sensors can be deployed, thus improving reliability.
What’s more, the bacteriophage infection does more than trigger the light signal. “Since the phage are infecting the pathogen, they’re ultimately killing it as well,” Ripp says. “So the phage itself could be sprayed onto an infected area to render the pathogens harmless.”
The Army is not the first governmental entity to show interest in bioluminescent bioreporter integrated circuits (BBICs). In October 2001, NASA awarded CEB’s research team, led by CEB director Gary Sayler, a grant to develop advanced environmental monitoring for spaceship habitats. (See “War of the Microbes,” InSites, Fall 2000.) NASA wants quick, small, portable monitors for the spaceship environment, where bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Staphylococcus aureus thrive. S. aureus was associated with nasal and skin infections during the Apollo 12 mission.
“These are common bacteria that occur everywhere,” says Ripp. “Normally they aren’t a problem, but in the spaceship environment, the human immune system is compromised, whether from stress, radiation, or some other factor.”
Moreover, E. coli has exhibited increased growth rate and antibiotic resistance in microgravity. And as the length of missions is extended, food-related infections from the ubiquitous Salmonella may increase.
Controllers back on Earth can use the information to respond to the presence of pathogens in the space ship. “For now, we can send the signal from the chip to a computer across the room,” Ripp says. “Eventually, we will be able to send it to a satellite and from there to anywhere.”
Boils and Blains
While common bacteria are a serious problem in the spaceship environment, Bacterium anthracis is one of the nastiest and oldest organisms found on Earth. Anthrax was likely the fifth plague—which caused the death of the cattle of Egypt as recorded in Exodus—and spawned the sixth plague, which caused people to break out in blains and boils, what we now know as cutaneous anthrax.
Until October 2001, though, few people other than veterinarians and farmers were aware that anthrax was endemic in certain regions of the United States in a form sometimes fatal to livestock, though human fatalities were extremely rare. Farmers typically contracted the less-deadly cutaneous form from contact with dead livestock, or ingestion anthrax from eating livestock that had died of unknown causes.
People who handled wool from infected herds of sheep and goats were susceptible to the inhaled and cutaneous forms of anthrax. But most people working in office environments knew little and cared less about the various forms of anthrax, how it can be weaponized, or how easily it might be used to shut down Congressional offices and mail distribution centers. Now, all that’s changed.
The race is on for rapid detection of Bacillus anthracis and a wide array of other potential agents of biological warfare. Though a few quick tests are available, the existing technology falls short of providing accurate, timely information. A recent health advisory from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, warns that some hand-held instant screening devices for Bacillus anthracis currently on the market are unreliable. If anthrax bacteria are detected, further confirmation is necessary, requiring time-consuming lab work.
Versatile, Portable, Resilient
The CEB-ORNL team has taken steps toward genuine miniaturization of easy-to-use and reliable optical transducers that could eventually be deployed in water, on surfaces, and in the atmosphere.
“You could just toss them into air vents or water samples,” Ripp says. “The bioreporters thrive in an environment that ranges from room temperature, about 25 degrees Celsius, to a hot summer day, about 40 degrees Celsius. And you can freeze-dry them and they last forever.”
How soon could this emerging technology be ready in the war against bioterrorism? “We’ve made a prototype microluminometer that is ready to leave the lab, and another is on the way,” says ORNL’s Simpson. “The microluminometer itself could be developed into a commercial product in a fairly short time.”
Readiness for a specific target such as the anthrax bacillus depends on the bioreporter development, however, and that could take some time. Each reporter has to be genetically tailored for a specific target contaminant. Ripp says it could take three to five years to fine-tune the bioreporter to target Bacillus anthracis. In addition, the Army has asked the CEB team to identify an array of potential biological warfare agents that CEB’s technology might be able to detect. These include strains of Bacillus anthracis, Brucella, Clostridium, the deadly Shigella, Staphylococcus aureus, Vibrio cholera, and Yersinia pestis.
The Right Staff
CEB, founded in 1986, is one of the oldest environmental biotechnology research centers in the country. Research undertaken since 1997 has produced bioluminescent reporters used experimentally in peacetime applications to identify toxins in wastewater treatment plants, for instance, or to detect chemicals such as naphthalene and toluene, present in jet-fuel mixtures, in groundwater. Other applications include precision agriculture, medical diagnostics, and food safety.
Today, the threat of bioterrorism requires a shift in focus from peaceful applications of biotechnology to defensive applications such as monitoring agents of biological warfare.
“When we began this research we were thinking strictly in terms of environmental contaminants,” Ripp says, “though recently we had been shopping to the Army the idea of using the technology to detect biological warfare agents.” After the events of September 11, as the world was waiting for the second shoe—a possible bioterrorist attack—to drop, “they were suddenly very eager to talk with us.”•
For more information contact Steven Ripp, CEB, The University of Tennessee, 676 Dabney Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996-1605, or call 865-974-8080.
Park
control of wild hogs protects fragile ecosystems.
By Lisa Byerley Gary
Editor’s Note: Each issue of InSites will feature an article from Sightline, a semiannual publication that focuses on the environmental health of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Sightline is a collaborative effort among the University of Tennessee’s Energy, Environment and Resources Center; Great Smoky Mountains National Park; Friends of Great Smoky Mountains National Park; and Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Association. The following article appeared in the summer edition of the publication. To receive a complimentary copy of Sightline, contact Constance Griffith at cbgriffith@utk.edu or 865-974-1156.
Other than its name and some common genetic heritage, the wild and wily hog has little in common with the smiling pink pig on your bacon package. In fact, the wild hog is a not-too-popular figure in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, where a thriving population causes severe damage to parts of the Park’s fragile ecosystem.
A non-native species imported to this area from Germany or Poland around 1912 as prey for hunters, wild hogs have proliferated in the Park to the point of becoming a nuisance, or worse. Controlling them is the job of the wildlife section of the Park’s resource management and science division.
Bill Stiver, a wildlife biologist who earned his master’s degree in wildlife and fisheries science at the University of Tennessee oversees hog control in the Park through a program of trapping, shooting, and some limited fencing. His work is part of an effort begun in 1959. UT scientists continued extensive studies on wild hog biology in the 1970s and early 1980s, Stiver says. “We learned a lot then. We’ve already documented their diet, migratory patterns, and reproduction behavior.” Well documented, too, is the wild hogs’ destruction of native flora and fauna.
Like their tame cousins, wild hogs will eat almost anything, Stiver says-from flowering plants to mushrooms, snails, snakes, small mammals, bird eggs, salamanders, and carrion—but the mast crop (the hard fruits of trees such as oak and hickory) is the mainstay of the wild hog’s diet. Unfortunately, mast is also the dietary mainstay for such native species as bear, deer, turkey, and squirrel.
Besides “hogging” the mast crop, wild hogs also create unhealthy “wallows” by rolling around in shallow, damp areas until they’ve made a round or oval depression. While this wallowing behavior helps keep the glandless hogs cool and removes parasites, it causes some problems as well. Not only do wallow holes contribute to erosion problems that harm native species like the brook trout, they contain bacteria, which can migrate to streams and pose danger to wildlife and humans.
But it is the wild hogs’ rooting behavior that causes the most significant damage to the Park. Many plant species, including ones that are rare or that take several years to flower, are eaten, trampled, or uprooted by the rototiller-like action of a foraging hog, Park experts say.
Hazards to Habitat
Wild hogs like to dig in the ground or root with their noses, and a hog’s nose is a much more destructive tool than one might think. According to a 1974 Park report, “Much of the hogs’ nourishment comes from the underground parts of plants and from animals which inhabit the soil or leaf litter.” Of 80 European food plants documented in a 1955 study, wild hogs were found to eat the roots or rhizomes of 49 species, the leaves or shoots of 24, and the fruit of 16. Spring-flowering plants such as star chickweed, fringed phacelia, and Dutchmen’s britches are often disturbed by hogs, as are Turk’s cap lily, Clingman’s hedge nettle, stinging nettle, and jewel weed, says Janet Rock, a Park botanist who tracks rare plant populations. Although the hogs’ rooting damage is widespread, certain areas of the Park are of special concern.
“Cades Cove represents an unusual concentration of unique plants,” Rock says. For example, “Coastal plain affinity plants—things you’d typically find near the North Carolina or Virginia coast—turn up in Cades Cove.” Yet, species such as Virginia chain fern have disappeared from the Gum Swamp area, and purple fringeless orchid can no longer be found in the Abram’s Creek floodplain, Rock says, in part because of hogs, though the plants’ disappearance may also be attributable to deer. Hogs are somewhat less of a concern now than in the past because the Park’s control efforts help keep the population down, Rock says.
Fenced exclosures, which have been used to protect unique vegetation in two wetland areas of Cades Cove for about 20 years, have also been tried in beech gap understories. The wire mesh fencing, which keeps hogs out but is passable for deer and bear, works well “unless a tree falls on it,” Stiver says, but it is expensive to install and maintain even in a limited area.
Disease Danger
Wild hogs not only damage plants and contaminate streams, they also pose a potential danger to domestic pigs in the area because of their ability to transmit diseases, Stiver says. The UT College of Veterinary Medicine tested blood serum samples from 195 wild hogs removed from the Smokies between December 1998 and February 2000. All tests were negative or inconclusive.
“I don’t know of any instances of disease transmittals in this area so far,” says Stiver. “The problem is with people bringing wild swine from other parts of the country and releasing them here. States south of here have problems with pseudorabies and with swine brucellosis in their wild hog populations. Both diseases cause abortion and piglet death, and the swine industry spends millions of dollars to keep [such diseases] out of commercial operations. Tennessee and North Carolina are officially free of both psuedorabies and swine brucellosis; we’d like to keep it that way.”
It is illegal to relocate wild swine without proper testing, Stiver says, but the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency has received reports of wild hogs from Florida being released near the Park.
Non-native
The first wild hogs in the Smokies area were true wild boars imported as game animals. The 10 sows and three boars were enclosed on a game preserve in Hoopers Bald, 15 miles southwest of the Park, where they multiplied undisturbed until 1920. Then about 100 of them escaped to the mountains where they interbred with feral pigs—domesticated hogs that had escaped from local farmers. The resulting stock looks remarkably like a true wild boar, Stiver says, complete with tusks, a mane, and dark, hairy fur. But an occasional white blaze on a face or white markings on feet give away their mixed heritage. Because the Smokies’ hogs are large (males average 125 pounds and four to five feet in length and stand two to three feet at the shoulder) and look like true wild boars, they are popular trophies for big game hunters.
Hunting is not allowed in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, but Stiver says the Park has an agreement with both Tennessee and North Carolina to relocate trapped hogs from the Park onto forest-service land that is open to seasonal hog hunting. Since 1959, of the nearly 10,000 hogs removed from the Smokies, about 4,000 have been trapped and relocated; the rest were killed. The decision to relocate is made on a case-by-case basis, Stiver says, and is largely a practical one. “If a hog is trapped five miles into the backcountry, it’s physically impossible to haul it out,” he says.
When wild hogs must be euthanized, they are left to recycle back into the Park. Bears, coyotes, turkey vultures, and other scavengers consume them. “When a hungry, undernourished bear emerges from its den in the spring and finds a healthy wild hog carcass, that is very beneficial,” Stiver says.
Control Efforts
The wildlife section’s permanent staff of five has a combined 60 years of experience controlling wild hogs, and most have a B.S. or M.S. in wildlife biology or a related field. Some staff members also have training and experience in handling firearms and are outdoors enthusiasts. That helps with a job that requires camping alone in the backcountry for several days at a time, Stiver says.
Such work is carried out under strict guidelines and requires a lot of paperwork. “This is a control program because of the impact pigs have on Park resources,” Stiver explains. “The work is carried out in a professional manner and as humanely as we can possibly make it. We have protocols for euthanizing pigs in a trap; this is not sport hunting.”
Helping the permanent staff are experienced seasonal employees who work six months at a time. In addition, resource assistants from the Student Conservation Association work three to four months at a time. These college students or recent graduates, many of whom have come through the wildlife and fisheries program at UT, get practical experience in resource management while providing a valuable service. “They’re a tremendous help for us,” Stiver says. “We pay them a small stipend and provide housing. In return they help us with wildlife management, especially with trapping.”
Although wild hogs have a reputation for being mean and ferocious, he says, the ones his staff encounters are actually quite skittish. Wild hogs are wary by nature; they avoid human contact whenever possible and forage mostly at night. Despite poor eyesight, their extraordinary senses of hearing and smell make them difficult to catch. “We work at night during the summer with only a flashlight. Many times we’ll be within 20 feet of a wild hog. If the wind changes and he catches our scent, he’s gone.”
While it’s unlikely the wild hog will ever be completely removed from Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Stiver says, the removal efforts his section manages help keep the population down. “Park visitors don’t encounter as many pigs as people did 20 to 25 years ago, but we encourage them to report any sitings.”•
For more information contact Bill Stiver, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 107 Park Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, TN 37738, or call 865-436-1251.
A UT
initiative musters a multidisciplinary research team to help anticipate, avert,
and resolve disputes over the management and distribution of water.
By Lisa Byerley Gary
Tourism brochures for Tennessee and the Southeast almost always feature glossy color photographs of rushing streams, lazy rivers, and expansive lakes. The region is known for its abundant water resources, which attract fishermen, rafters, water skiers, and boaters from around the nation.
Those same rivers, streams, and lakes are the economic lifeblood of the region as well, providing for farming, shipping, manufacturing, and power generation. Other parts of the country have suffered water disputes for decades and consider water a scarce commodity. For the most part, the Southeast has never had to think in those terms.
But it should, says David Feldman, who directs the Southeast Water Policy Initiative at the University of Tennessee (UT).
“Even in the Southeast, this precious resource is at risk from the effects of multiple uses and increasing demand resulting from rapid population growth, development, and urbanization,” Feldman says.
Finite Resource
A senior research scientist with UT’s Energy, Environment and Resources Center (EERC), Feldman has led state and regional efforts to think and plan about water resource management. Growing population, changes in land-use patterns, and increased manufacturing and irrigation put more pressure than ever on water resources. When a town or region needs more water than it can supply, it naturally looks to surrounding areas for new resources. That, in turn, has water supply and quality ramifications for other regions.
“Before these issues grow in magnitude, and before dialogue among users and suppliers becomes contentious, we should reflect on options available to proactively prevent intractable conflict,” Feldman says.
To that end, UT sponsored the Southeast Water Resources Management and Supply symposium in Chattanooga in 1998 to assess the region’s water supply challenges. Some 180 regional water specialists and others came together for that event, and 100 gathered for a follow-up meeting the next year to develop policy recommendations.
Next, Feldman assisted the state in drafting Tennessee’s Interbasin Water Transfer Act of 2000, which gives the state power to regulate diversions of surface and groundwater from one basin to another.
Interdisciplinary Response
Feldman and colleagues at UT built on those activities and created the Southeast Water Policy Initiative with the objective of establishing a coherent, long-term, collaborative approach to solving water problems. The interdisciplinary research and education partnership, which includes scientists and research assistants from at least five disciplines, will pool resources to develop practical strategies for protecting water resources. The team will also shape innovative policies that anticipate, avert, and resolve disputes over the management and distribution of water.
The Initiative team can offer unbiased and nonpartisan resources to public and private groups that need its assistance, Feldman says.
That can only mean good things for Tennessee and the region, says G. Dodd Galbreath, director of policy for the state’s Department of Environment and Conservation. “It’s our belief that UT’s work through the Water Policy Initiative will add significant momentum to state efforts to resolve Tennessee’s needs.”
Cyber Solutions
Among other things, the group is developing a Web site designed as a virtual library on water policy issues, integrating a searchable database and Geographic Information System tools. You can follow its progress at http://www.Waterpolicy.org.
In addition to Feldman, a political scientist, the Initiative’s core staff comprises four other scholars.
Robert Freeland, associate professor in Biosystems Engineering and Environmental Sciences with UT’s Institute of Agriculture, conducts research in environmental mapping technologies, which include global positioning systems and geophysical mapping. His research interests include mapping subsurface water flow and surveying agricultural soils.
Carol Harden is a professor in UT’s Department of Geography who specializes in watershed processes. Her research relates to biophysical characteristics of soils and land uses and also examines the persistence of the geomorphic and hydrologic effects of human activity and development patterns.
Robert Jones, associate professor in UT’s Department of Sociology’s Environment and Society program, researches human dimensions of environmental change and ecosystem management.
Forbes Walker, an assistant professor with UT’s Agricultural Extension Service, is an environmental soils specialist who has worked on development projects in Africa. He evaluates best-management practices for maintaining water quality.
Two graduate students support the efforts of the core staff.
Expertise Epicenter
As one of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the United States, UT—situated in the heart of the Tennessee River Valley—possesses the interdisciplinary depth and breadth necessary to house the Initiative. UT is also located at the epicenter of a number of the region’s more specialized institutions that boast water-related expertise.
Among them are Tennessee Tech, with its strengths in hydrology, chemistry, and GIS applications; North Carolina State, with its expertise in animal wastes and nonpoint water pollution; Georgia Tech, specializing in instream flow modeling; and the University of Memphis, with its strengths in groundwater modeling.
The Initiative will also nurture ties with the Tennessee Valley Authority and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which house a variety of related expertise. Feldman and his colleagues have developed collaborative relationships with investigators from several of these and other institutions.
Prior to creation of the Southeast Water Policy Initiative, there was no organization in the region devoted solely to water-policy research and education, Feldman says, and the need for the Initiative’s work will only become greater as time passes.
Indeed, the state and the region’s economy, quality of life, environmental beauty, and recreational opportunities depend on sound water management. Emerging conflicts in the region and the nation dictate the need for careful and thoughtful research into the multi-faceted natural, engineering, and social-science dimensions of water use.
“Tennessee currently has a unique opportunity to learn from the mistakes of other states,” Galbreath says. “We need to shape our own future before circumstances and inaction shape it for us.”•
For more information contact David Feldman, EERC, The University of Tennessee, 311 Conference Center Building, Knoxville, TN 37996-4134, or call 865-974-4086.
EERC
researchers help purchasing agents “choose green” by recommending products
and manufacturing
By Lisa Byerley Gary
Lots of products on the market, including everything from household cleaners to construction materials, say they are environmentally benign—that they contain recycled content, pose minimal environmental impacts, or have been manufactured using Earth-friendly materials and processes. But when consumers and corporate purchasing agents read the fine print, they may find that their purchase isn't nearly so green as they thought.
That’s precisely the misrepresentation GreenSeal
was established to address. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization is
dedicated to protecting the environment by identifying and promoting products
and services that are environmentally sound. Products and services that meet
GreenSeal’s stringent criteria are awarded the “Green Seal of Approval,”
which helps steer consumers toward environmentally superior products.
“Green” Defined
But defining what is truly green and deciding which products among the hundreds in the marketplace deserve that designation is no simple matter.
That’s where researchers at the University of Tennessee’s Energy, Environment, and Resources Center (EERC) come in. Staff from EERC’s Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies (CCPCT) have been hired to perform the technical evaluations behind the GreenSeal label. To that end, CCPCT brings a life-cycle approach to evaluation that examines all aspects of a product, from extraction of raw materials, through the manufacturing process, to how the product is handled, used, and ultimately disposed of or recycled.
“The life-cycle approach helps us understand critical environmental data like total energy use, recycled content, and the recyclability of the item,” says CCPCT researcher Rajive Dhingra. “All those things are part of the standard. For instance, if a product contains wood fiber, we recommend use of unbleached wood fiber, which is much easier on the environment.”
Clam-shell Criteria
As one of CCPCT’s GreenSeal evaluators, Dhingra often finds himself studying products with a critical eye that sets him apart from most consumers. His gaze has recently fallen on “clam-shell” containers distributed by the millions to consumers who order burgers at fast-food restaurants—among them, McDonald’s.
As a result of the work of Dhingra and other CCPCT researchers, GreenSeal approved a product called EarthShell, a rigid, single-use food container made from limestone and starch along with a few binders thrown in for strengthening. Fast-food sandwich containers are traditionally made from cardboard-type material or from polystyrene, a material that doesn’t readily degrade in a landfill.
“The new container is superior,” Dhingra says. “Based on the materials it’s made from, you could almost eat the box along with your lunch.”
In addition to the limestone particles, the potato starch used in EarthShell boxes is actually a byproduct of making food items like french fries—and McDonald’s certainly sells plenty of those. The box is strengthened with wood fibers to make it sturdy enough to stack with others in your take-out bag, and it can be composted.
Dhingra’s work involved, among other things, evaluating the functional requirements of a burger container along with the environmental impacts associated with various materials.
“We determined that fast-food restaurants needed to be able to stack the containers three or four deep,” he explains. “So the box had to bear the weight of three or four sandwiches if it was at the bottom of a bag. It had to hold grease in and also keep the sandwich warm for a certain period of time.”
The Right Choice
In the case of the sandwich container, CCPCT helped GreenSeal develop an industry standard. In other cases, the CCPCT staff conducts product research and produces Choose Green reports that target purchasing agents for companies of all sizes and steer them toward environmentally superior products.
To date, CCPCT has produced Choose Green reports on office furniture and particle and fiber board. The Center is working on two additional reports on carpeting and nonpaper office supplies.
GreenSeal seeks, among other things, to reduce air and water pollution, reduce waste of energy and natural resources, and protect wildlife habitat. To reach those goals, GreenSeal establishes partnerships with government, business, and industry. Among some 200 partners listed on the GreenSeal Web site are BellSouth Telecommunications Inc., American Youth Hostels, Emory University, and Warner Brothers.
All partners receive the Choose Green reports, but the reports reach even further, says Arthur Weissman, president and chief executive officer of GreenSeal. They’ve been used verbatim, he says, in industry databases, and the U.S. Department of the Interior features some of the reports on its Web site. In addition, industry publications like Lodging magazine, which reaches some 160,000 leaders in the hospitality industry, feature articles on the Choose Green reports. The reports’ total reach, says Weissman, is “in the hundreds of thousands.”
GreenSeal funds its projects from its own budget and also
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and manufacturers interested in
evaluations of specific products or processes.
Mutual Benefit
CCPCT’s relationship with GreenSeal is mutually beneficial, says Weissman. Both he and his predecessor have served on CCPCT’s advisory board, while CCPCT’s director, Gary Davis, sits on GreenSeal’s board.
Early in 2002, the CCPCT staff, in partnership with GreenSeal, will begin developing procurement criteria for the state of California; California will apply the guidelines in purchasing certain products.
Though EarthShell containers have not yet made it to
McDonald’s in Tennessee, the fast-food company is already using the green
boxes in some states. Meanwhile, Dhingra and colleague Jonathan Overly are
working on another study to develop an environmental standard for EarthShell
bowls and plates for the Winter Olympics.•
For more information contact Rajive Dhingra, CCPCT, The University of Tennessee, 311 Conference Center Building, Knoxville, TN 37996-4134, call 865-974-8752, or visit the GreenSeal Web site at <http://www.greenseal.org>.
• PRESENTATIONS. Jack Barkenbus, executive director of UT’s Energy, Environment and Resources Center (EERC), recently served as a presenter and moderator of a briefing organized by the American Chemical Society (ACS). The briefing, “R & D’s Role in a Balanced Energy Policy,” was part of the ACS’s Science and The Congress program, which provides monthly briefings to congressional staffers. The meeting, attended by 125 staffers and members of the executive branch, took place in the Rayburn Building on Capitol Hill.
• PROJECTS. More than 45 representatives from the electronics industry, state and local government, and environmental nonprofits are meeting to formulate a national agreement on product stewardship for waste electronics. Gary Davis, director of the EERC’s Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, and EERC Senior Research Associate
Catherine Wilt are facilitating this process under a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Their efforts culminated in the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative, or NEPSI, which held its inaugural meeting in San Francisco in June.
The Saturn-UT land-use team enhances native
vegetation and wildlife diversity, improves water quality, and reduces
maintenance costs at Saturn Corporation’s 2,500-acre site in Spring Hill,
Tennessee. EERC Research Scientist Jack
Ranney serves as project leader, and Research Associate Karen
L. Smith serves as project coordinator. Other team members include Jerome
Grant and Reid
Gerhardt, professors in UT’s Department of Entomology and Plant
Pathology, and William Park,
professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. The
Saturn-UT Land Use Project now displays project descriptions, native plants,
exotic species, and more at <http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/slup/index.htm>.
General Motors also highlights the project at <http://www.gm.com/company/gmability>;
scroll down and click on “Biodiversity Thrives.”
• GRANT. The Knoxville Police Department recently awarded a $30,000 grant to EERC’s Systems Development Institute. SDI will develop and build a browser-based database that will help the Knoxville Truancy Center manage and track juvenile offenders. Anurag Agarwal, SDI’s assistant director, will serve as principle investigator (PI) on the project. Agarwal serves as PI on another project that will uncover limitations in an existing record-management system and perform browser-based system upgrades, if needed, for Tennessee’s Ninth Judicial District. The Knox County Child Advocacy Center, ChildHelp USA, has also asked SDI to build a browser-based system to help manage its data needs. Senior Research Scientist Warren Wilson will assist Agarwal on this project, which will be implemented in Child Advocacy Centers statewide.
