Table 8.1: Options for form of standards advantages and disadvantages – Definition Implementation Resources Form Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Fixed number of Simple to define. Arbitrary definition. Easy to apply in principle. Could result in unfair comparisons Current approach no None. – allowed between jurisdictions, as some have additional resources exceedances more natural and trans-boundary events required (including zero) than others. Minimal change in reporting Requires development of simple and process. clear guidelines on classification of pollution events. Percentile rule Simple definition. Provides Does not aid the Simple calculation based on Could result in unfair comparisons Few or no additional None. stable and practical understanding of existing data. No additional between jurisdictions, as some suffer resources required. reference point. events. data required. more natural & trans-boundary events than others. Easy to average over several years. Focuses on providing Consistency with some AAQ NEPM reports would not support protection for people USEPA air quality standards. an assessment of effort and progress in residing in or near areas anthropogenic air pollution control. of high average concentration rather than extreme events. Potentially complex to explain to Natural events rule Exceedances stated in Definition of thresholds All breaches of standards Potentially impractical for jurisdictions None. Potentially resource (in combination with relation to real and is currently unclear. caused by human activity are with large land areas where bush fires intensive. Likely to either a fixed defined pollution events. How are small-scale accounted for. and planned burning are prevalent but require additional number of allowed events treated? Do data are very limited (e.g. NT). analysis of data. Difficult exceedances or a natural events affect to fund for smaller percentile) non-exceedance jurisdictions. periods? Fairer comparison of Allows a direct assessment of Lack of transparency. Elements are anthropogenic pollution the success of policy efforts likely to be open to interpretation and across jurisdictions. to control anthropogenic ‘gaming’. pollution. Removes confusion concerning the concept of allowable exceedances.
Table 8.1: Options for form of standards – advantages and disadvantages Form Definition Implementation Resources Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Fixed number of allowed exceedances (including zero) Simple to define. Arbitrary definition. Easy to apply in principle. Could result in unfair comparisons between jurisdictions, as some have more natural and trans-boundary events than others. Current approach – no additional resources required None. Minimal change in reporting process. Requires development of simple and clear guidelines on classification of pollution events. Percentile rule Simple definition. Provides stable and practical reference point. Does not aid the understanding of events. Simple calculation based on existing data. No additional data required. Easy to average over several years. Could result in unfair comparisons between jurisdictions, as some suffer more natural & trans-boundary events than others. Few or no additional resources required. None. Focuses on providing protection for people residing in or near areas of high average concentration rather than extreme events. Consistency with some USEPA air quality standards. AAQ NEPM reports would not support an assessment of effort and progress in anthropogenic air pollution control. Potentially complex to explain to Natural events rule (in combination with either a fixed number of allowed exceedances or a percentile) Exceedances stated in relation to real and defined pollution events. Definition of thresholds is currently unclear. How are small-scale events treated? Do natural events affect non-exceedance periods? All breaches of standards caused by human activity are accounted for. Potentially impractical for jurisdictions with large land areas where bush fires and planned burning are prevalent but data are very limited (e.g. NT). None. Potentially resource intensive. Likely to require additional analysis of data. Difficult to fund for smaller jurisdictions. Fairer comparison of anthropogenic pollution across jurisdictions. Allows a direct assessment of the success of policy efforts to control anthropogenic pollution. Lack of transparency. Elements are likely to be open to interpretation and ‘gaming’. Removes confusion concerning the concept of allowable exceedances.
aaq-nepm-draft-variation-impact-statement.docx