Overview
Title
Air Plan Approval; Washington; Olympic Region Clean Air Agency, Recreational Fires
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA said it's okay for people in a part of Washington to have small campfires again, because it won't make the air dirty, starting in February 2025.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved a change to the Washington State Implementation Plan, removing a ban on small recreational fires in Thurston County. This ban, which was mistakenly added in 2013, covered fires using seasoned firewood or charcoal, commonly seen in backyards and campfires. The EPA confirmed that removing the ban won't harm air quality in the area. This update allows recreational fires in specific cities and surrounding areas within Thurston County, effective February 18, 2025.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) that was submitted by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) in coordination with the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). In 2013, Ecology and ORCAA inadvertently submitted for incorporation into the SIP a ban on small, recreational fires in Thurston County. These fires are defined as having a maximum pile size of three feet in diameter by two feet high using seasoned firewood or charcoal, generally associated with backyard, summer campfires. Ecology and ORCAA provided a review of the historical record to demonstrate that the ban on recreational fires was not relied upon for attainment, maintenance, or reasonable further progress in the Thurston County area. Ecology and ORCAA also provided data to demonstrate that removing the ban on recreational fires would not interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards. Therefore, we are approving the request by Ecology and ORCAA to remove this provision from the SIP.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document describes a recent decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to amend the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) by removing an unintended ban on small recreational fires in Thurston County. The EPA's action was in response to a request by the Department of Ecology and the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency to correct an error made in 2013. At that time, a provision that prohibited these fires was mistakenly included in the SIP. The fires affected by this ban are typically those used in backyard settings or for summer campfires, which use seasoned firewood or charcoal.
General Summary
The EPA's approval of this SIP revision essentially rolls back a restriction on small recreational fires that was never intended to be part of air quality regulations. The document states that the change will not adversely impact air quality in the affected areas, which include the cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater, as well as unincorporated areas of Thurston County. The change is scheduled to take effect on February 18, 2025.
Significant Issues or Concerns
There are a few areas in the document that may raise concerns or lead to questions. Firstly, the technical language and legal references might be difficult to understand for those not familiar with environmental regulations. Additionally, the document does not explain the original reasons for the ban—an understanding of which might have been beneficial for context. While the document discusses environmental justice, it does not delve deeply into how the decision might specifically affect low-income or minority populations within Thurston County.
Public Impact
Broadly, the EPA's decision allows residents of Thurston County to resume legal small-scale outdoor recreational fires. For the general public, this means greater freedom for social and leisure activities, such as backyard gatherings and traditional campfires. The change does not pose any additional environmental threats, according to the data reviewed, which ensures continued compliance with national air quality standards.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Homeowners and residents in the affected areas will likely view this decision positively, as it reinstates a common recreational activity. Local businesses that benefit from campfire-related sales, like those selling firewood and charcoal, may also see positive economic impacts. On the other hand, there might be concerns among environmental advocates about the potential cumulative effects of many small fires on air quality, although the EPA has stated that this is not a concern. Moreover, if there were any previously affected groups not considered before the ban, such as vulnerable populations with respiratory issues, their concerns might not have been fully addressed in the removal of the ban.
In conclusion, while the decision is largely administrative, focusing on correcting an unintended regulation, it does carry implications for community practices and regional air quality management. Stakeholders and the general public should find this to be an overall positive development, contingent on the maintenance of current air quality levels.
Issues
• The document's technical terms and references to specific legal provisions may be overly complex for readers without specialized knowledge in environmental regulations.
• There is no mention of a financial analysis or any assessment of potential economic impacts tied directly to the removal of the ban on recreational fires, which might be relevant to determine fiscal implications on state or local funding.
• The document does not provide specific information on why the original ban was implemented, which might be useful for context and understanding the implications of its removal.
• The discussion on environmental justice appears adequate but lacks detail about how low-income or minority communities might be affected by this decision.
• Some parts could benefit from more layperson-friendly explanations, particularly those related to CFR references and legal citations.