ALBERT

Notes: Of the 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed in the Clean Air Act, only a handful have information on human health effects, derived primarily from animal and occupational studies. Lack of consistent monitoring data on ambient air toxics makes it difficult to assess the extent of low-level, chronic, ambient exposures to HAPs that could affect human health, and limits attempts to prioritize and evaluate policy initiatives for emissions reduction. Modeled outdoor HAP concentration estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Cumulative Exposure Project were used to characterize the extent of the air toxics problem in California for the base year of 1990. These air toxics concentration estimates were used with chronic toxicity data to estimate cancer and noncancer hazards for individual HAPs and the risks posed by multiple pollutants. Although hazardous air pollutants are ubiquitous in the environment, potential cancer and noncancer health hazards posed by ambient exposures are geographically concentrated in three urbanized areas and in a few rural counties. This analysis estimated a median excess individual cancer risk of 2.7E−4 for all air toxics concentrations and 8600 excess lifetime cancer cases, 70% of which were attributable to four pollutants: polycyclic organic matter, 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde, and benzene. For noncancer effects, the analysis estimated a total hazard index representing the combined effect of all HAPs considered. Each pollutant contributes to the index a ratio of estimated concentration to reference concentration. The median value of the index across census tracts was 17, due primarily to acrolein and chromium concentration estimates. On average, HAP concentrations and cancer and noncancer health risks originate mostly from area and mobile source emissions, although there are several locations in the state where point sources account for a large portion of estimated concentrations and health risks. Risk estimates from this study can provide guidance for prioritizing research, monitoring, and regulatory intervention activities to reduce potential hazards to the general population. Improved ambient monitoring efforts can help clarify uncertainties inherent in this analysis.

Notes: Management concern surrounding the supply of goods and services from business to business, and the related attempts to understand the phenomena observed therein, appears to rest upon a broad range of incompatible perspectives, from political science (often limited to considerations of power) to the logistical (akin to manipulation of a great, benign but dynamic jigsaw puzzle). It appears that all perspectives abrade against the difficulties of exchanging information, knowledge and innovation within the relationships between buying and selling organizations and the apparent chronic systemic inefficiency that transactions often represent in this context. This article addresses these concerns, exploring the concept of transparency and the developments necessary for it to be useful in exchanging sensitive information and tacit knowledge in supply relationships. Our central concern is how the understanding of transparency and its commercial importance may change when it is expressed as a manageable element of the relationship between two organizations rather than as a general property of a broader system (e.g. a supply network, industrial sub-sector, geographical cluster) and what utility this differentiation might hold for managers. The conclusion to the article, and the implication for managers, is that transparency might indeed be created and usefully managed within supply relationships but that it would differ fundamentally in meaning from previously posited concepts, with the same name, in different contexts.