

Regional cities' scorecard for ozone NEPM 4-hour standard, based on analysis of air quality index values, 1998-2014
Regional cities' scorecard for ozone NEPM 4-hour standard, based on analysis of air quality index values, 1998-2014
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The assessment summary in 2011 was assessed for the years 1999-2008
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 89; good 11; fair 0; poor 0; very poor 0
Topics
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 35; good 62; fair 2; poor 1; very poor 0
Topics
Victoria – Moe/Traralgon - ozone (4-hour average)
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- Traralgon was not previously included in the 2011 assessment
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 99; good 1; fair 0; poor 0; very poor 0
Topics
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 68; good 31; fair 1; poor 0; very poor 0
Topics
This period includes the 2014 Hazelwood mine fire, which affected the Victorian towns of Moe and Traralgon. The NEPM site at Moe was discontinued in quarter 4 of 2009.
Assessment Summary Key
Grades
Very good
Air quality is considered very good, and air pollution poses little or no risk
Good
Air quality is considered good, and air pollution poses little or no risk
Fair
Air quality is acceptable. However, there may be a health concerns for very sensitive people
Poor
Air quality is unhealthy for sensitive groups. The general population is not likely to be affected in this range
Very poor
Air quality is unhealthy, and everyone may begin to experience health effects. People from sensitive groups
may experience more serious health effects
Recent Trends
-
Improving
-
Stable
-
Deteriorating
-
Unclear
Confidence
-
Adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus
-
Somewhat adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus
-
Limited: Limited evidence or limited consensus
-
Very limited: Limited evidence and limited consensus
-
Low: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment
Comparability
-
Comparable: Grade and trend are comparable to the previous assessment
-
Somewhat comparable: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the previous assessment
-
Not comparable: Grade and trend are not comparable to the previous assessment
-
Not previously assessed
Comments
Nil.