ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE 2021/01/20 PacketENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, January 20, 2021 – 6:30 P.M.
REMOTE ACCESS MEETING
AGENDA
Please be advised that all of the Environmental Sustainability Committee members will be
remotely attending this Committee meeting by electronic means, in compliance with Governor’s
Executive Order 2020-39, issued on May 29, 2020, that extended the suspension of certain Open
Meetings Act provisions relating to in-person attendance by members of a public body.
Specifically, the Governor’s Order: (1) suspends the requirement in Section 2.01 that “members of
a public body must be physically present;” and (2) suspends the limitations in Section 7 on when
remote participation is allowed. This Executive Order is effective the duration of the current
Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation. The City will be providing members of the public with
various opportunities to watch or attend this meeting, as well as provide public comment at the
meeting. For example, members of the public can participate remotely in the meeting by following
the public audience link which will provide both video and audio means to attend the meeting.
Public audience link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85161938791?pwd=djN2bHZJVHVGRlEzdXZiM3hYdWlWUT09
Or dial by phone at: 312-626-6799
Webinar ID: 836 0714 6791
Passcode: 1861
I.CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
_____ Ald. Melanie Rummel, Chairman
_____ Ald. Jed Morris
_____ Ald. Jim Preschlack
II.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a.None
III.ACTION ITEMS
a.APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 17, 2020 MEETING MINUTES
b.APPROACHES TO REGULATE THE USE OF COAL TAR-BASED SEALANTS
–Presented by Layla Werner, Administrative Intern
IV.ADDITIONAL ITEMS
a.UPDATE ON SINGLE-USE PLASTIC RECYCLING CAMPAIGN – Presented
by Layla Werner, Administrative Intern
b.UPDATE ON PLASTIC STRAW ALTERNATIVES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY –
Presented by Chairman Rummel, Environmental Sustainability Committee
V.PUBLIC COMMENT
VI.NEXT MEETING DATE(S)
VII.ADJOURNMENT
ACTION ITEM:
APPROVAL OF
DECEMBER 17, 2020
MEETING MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE MEETING 1
2 Thursday, December 17, 2020 – 6:30 P.M.
REMOTE ACCESS MEETING 3
4
ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER 5
6
Chairman Melanie Rummel called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. Alderman 7
Jed Morris was present. Alderman Jim Preschlack was absent 8
9
Staff in attendance included Mike Strong, Assistant City Manager; Michael 10
Thomas, Director of Public Works; Dan Martin, Superintendent of Public Works; 11
Cathy Czerniak, Director of Community Development; Chuck Myers, 12
Superintendent of Parks, Forestry and Special Facilities; Robert Ells, 13
Superintendent of Engineering and Layla Werner, Administrative Intern. 14
15
Also in attendance was Mark Pruitt, Consultant. 16
17
There were approximately 2 members of the public that attended the meeting 18
remotely. 19
20
Chairman Rummel made the following statement as required by the Open 21
Meetings Act. In accordance with state statute, Chairman Rummel has made a 22
determination that it was not practical or prudent to schedule an in-person 23
Committee meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is why this 24
October 26, 2020 Environmental Sustainability Committee meeting is being held 25
remotely. 26
27
Chairman Rummel introduced Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works to 28
present to the Committee on fleet electrification. Director Thomas gave a brief 29
overview of the attended webinar hosted by ComEd. He explained that specific 30
vehicles will be converted for fleet purposes to utilize renewable energy 31
resources within the next four years. Mr. Thomas stated his interest in pursuing 32
vehicles lie this for the City, if they are able to fulfill the level of service current 33
vehicles are able to conduct. 34
35
The Committee thanked Director Thomas for sharing this information, with the 36
potential of adding vehicles like this to the City’s fleet. 37
38
Additionally, there was discussion about hybrid vehicles versus 100% electric 39
vehicles. 40
41
ACTION ITEMS 42
43
I.APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 MEETING MINUTES44
Alderman Morris moved to approve the October 26, 202045
Environmental Sustainability Committee meeting minutes subject to46
changes shared with Layla Werner. Chairman Rummel seconded47
the motion. The following voted “Aye”: Chairman Rummel and48
Environmental Sustainability Committee Minutes
December, 17 2020
Alderman Morris. The following voted “Nay”: None. 2-Ayes, 0 Nays, 49
motion carried. 50
51
II.CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S PLAN OF52
OPERATION AND GOVERNANCE FOR ITS ELECTRICITY53
AGGREGATION PROGRAM – Presented by Mike Strong54
55
Mike Strong, Assistant City Manager, gave a brief presentation56
updating the Committee regarding Electrical Aggregation. He57
gave the Committee a brief background on Municipal58
Aggregation, when the program first began in 2012 and how59
customers were able to benefit through reduced rates. Upon60
ComEd costs becoming more competitive, the program was idled61
in May 2017. He continued to explain the participation in a new62
Aggregation program, which would still generate savings for63
customers. Mr. Strong stated that at this time, 7% of the energy64
supplied in the ComEd territory is from a renewable energy source,65
with an overall 25% target by 2025.66
67
Chairman Rummel asked if there were any questions or comments68
from the public.69
70
The Committee had lengthy discussion about customer rates, and71
reimbursement of funds to the City.72
73
Chairman Rummel asked if there were any questions or comments74
from the public.75
76
There was additional discussion regarding the timeline of the77
project, and implementation.78
79
Chairman Rummel moved to recommend approval to the City80
Council to Amend the City’s Plan of Operation and Governance to81
Facilitate the Exploration of an Electricity Aggregation Program.82
Alderman Morris seconded the motion. The following voted “Aye”:83
Chairman Rummel and Alderman Morris. The following voted84
“Nay”: None. 2-Ayes, 0 Nays, motion carried.85
86
Chairman Rummel asked if there were any additional comments87
from the Committee. Seeing none she asked if there were any88
questions or comments from the public.89
90
Seeing none, she moved to the next agenda item.91
92
93
94
95
Environmental Sustainability Committee Minutes
December, 17 2020
III. CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC RECYCLING 96
PARTNERSHIPS – Presented by Layla Werner 97
98
Mike Strong, Assistant City Manager introduce Layla Werner, 99
Administrative intern to provide background on a potential 100
partnership for a single-use plastic recycling campaign. Layla 101
Werner gave a brief presentation regarding opportunities to 102
partner with local retailers in Lake Forest, as designated drop-off 103
locations for residents. She further explained the partnership local 104
retailers have with the identified company Trex, who collect single-105
use plastic bags which are ethically recycled for eco-friendly 106
composite decking alternatives. Staff has identified the initial 107
location as the Lake Forest Compost & Recycling Center to be a 108
collection site, which would be dropped off at Jewel-Osco. 109
110
Chairman Rummel asked if there were any questions or comments 111
on this agenda item. 112
113
The Committee had discussion regarding the potential of having 114
additional drop off locations. 115
116
Alderman Morris moved to recommend approval to begin a single-117
use plastic bag recycling campaign. Chairman Rummel seconded 118
the motion. The following voted “Aye”: Chairman Rummel and 119
Alderman Morris. The following voted “Nay”: None. 2-Ayes, 0 Nays, 120
motion carried. 121
122
Chairman Rummel asked if there were any additional comments 123
from the Committee. Seeing none she asked if there were any 124
questions or comments from the public. 125
126
Seeing none, she moved to the next agenda item. 127
128
ADDITIONAL ITEMS 129
130
I. REVIEW OF SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES & PRIORITIES – 131
Presented by Mike Strong 132
133
Assistant City Manager, Mike Strong gave a brief overview of the 134
potential sustainability initiatives and priorities as developed by MIST 135
Environment and the Committee. Additionally, he updated the 136
Committee on the status of specific projects discussed at the 137
previous meeting. Mr. Strong explained the budgetary impacts of 138
future sustainability initiatives, as they correlated with the “grey to 139
green” infrastructure concept developed by the Committee. He 140
stated that this idea log would be attached in the monthly agenda 141
packet, to ensure the Committee can continually discuss potential 142
projects. 143
Environmental Sustainability Committee Minutes
December, 17 2020
144
The Committee discussed future projects, and potential timelines. 145
146
Chairman Rummel asked if there were any additional questions or 147
comments from the Committee. Seeing none, she asked if there 148
were any questions or comments from the public. 149
150
Seeing none, she moved to the next agenda item. 151
152
PUBLIC COMMENT 153
154
Chairman Rummel asked if there were any public comments on any non-155
agenda items. 156
157
Seeing none, Chairman Rummel moved to the next agenda item. 158
159
NEXT MEETING DATE(S) 160
161
Mike Strong stated the next meeting would be scheduled for the third week in 162
January. 163
164
ADJOURNMENT 165
166
Alderman Morris moved to adjourn the meeting of the Environmental 167
Sustainability Committee at 8:02 P.M. seconded by Chairman Rummel. The 168
motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 169
170
Respectfully Submitted, 171
172
Layla Werner 173
Administrative Intern 174
175
176
Reviewed by, 177
178
Mike Strong 179
Assistant City Manager 180
ACTION ITEM:
APPROACHES TO REGULATE
THE USE OF COAL TAR-
BASED SEALANTS
MEMORANDUM
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
1
TO: Members of the Environmental Sustainability Committee
FROM: Layla Werner, Administrative Intern
DATE: Friday, January 15, 2021
SUBJECT: Approaches to Regulate the Use of Coal Tar-based Sealants
Background
Coal tar is an inexpensive sealant product used to seal the surface of a driveway or parking lot. This
product contains a group of chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs are toxic
and carcinogenic to aquatic life, and some of which are probable human carcinogens. PAHs infiltrate
ecosystems and natural resources via storm water runoff, foot traffic, adhesion to tires, and by wind.
After a sealant application is completed, the concentration of PAHs in runoff can be elevated for months.
Since the early 2000s, there has been growing concern and questions over the use of coal tar-based
sealants to protect asphalt surfaces. In 2003, the City of Austin implemented the first coal tar sealant
regulation within the United States, after studies they, and the United States Geological Survey,
conducted which found correlation between coal tar parking lots and high levels of PAH concentrations.
Since this time, nearly a hundred communities have adopted bans prohibiting coal tar products. There is
an especially high rate of bans in place within the great lakes region.
Within the North Shore, policy conversations surrounding the topic have occurred at the County level and
in various municipalities around Lake County and adjacent suburbs. Some of this response is due to
various regional watershed groups who are encouraging communities to adopt local bans. Some
communities have moved to adopt ordinances banning the application of coal tar based sealants,
including the adoption of strict licensing programs for seal coaters to ensure they do not use these
products within their community. Others have moved for softer approaches, such as public education
campaigns to heighten resident and commercial awareness.
In Lake Forest, these discussions have mainly occurred within local environmental advocacy groups and
the Lake Forest Collaborative for Environmental Leadership (LFCEL). To help educate residents on the
risks associated with coal tar, the LFCEL developed a brochure and education materials, and the City has
included information on its website and within the City’s Dialogue Newsletter outlining the risks of its
usage. Additionally, the Committee last discussed this during its meeting on June 10, 2020, and
suggested the topic be discussed at a future meeting date. Additional background material on Coal Tar-
based sealants is attached to this memorandum.
Coal Tar-Based Sealant Memorandum
Environmental Sustainability Committee
1/15/2021
2
Current Lake Forest Standards and Activity
The City does not currently have any regulations restricting the use of coal tar within the community, and
does not use sealcoats on parking lots or other city-owned parking surfaces in its operations.
Data on the overall use of these sealants on residential and commercial properties within the City is not
currently available as this type of maintenance does not require a permit. On whether it is readily
available within the community, staff found that multiple major retailers, such as Ace, Home Depot,
Lowes and Menards, have begun the process of phasing out coal-tar products for purchase, or no longer
sell the products at their locations and offer alternatives such as asphalt-based sealants.
In addition to the major retailers stated, Lake Forest Hardware does not carry the product, as there is no
demand for the sale of it in the community.
Community Approaches Taken to Regulate Coal Tar Usage
Within the North Shore, Highland Park, Glenview, Winnetka, and Deerfield have adopted local bans on
coal tar-based sealants. To enable enforcement, some communities have created a licensing process
associated with a licensing fee requiring sealcoating professionals to be licensed by a local authority and
have enacted a penalty those contractors who violate their ordinance. There is minimal data collected
from these communities to suggest any decrease in the use of coal-tar based sealants, as there was a lack
of data of use prior to their ordinance adoption. A copy of Deerfield’s Ordinance is attached, along with a
Coal Tar Ban Information Guide that the Village of Winnetka developed as part of their regulations.
Rather than adopting an ordinance banning its use, some communities such as Glencoe, have established
educational campaigns to encourage using alternatives to coal tar-based sealants. They have promoted
coal tar alternatives such as asphalt-based sealants, replacing asphalt with concrete driveways, or leaving
driveways unsealed.
It should be noted that many major retailers in the surrounding areas of these communities began the
process of phasing out coal tar-based products in 2014, when the first set of ordinances were adopted. If
they still sell this product, businesses are required to post notices near the product explaining the
ordinance and fines associated with usage.
Discussion and Direction Requested
It is evident that there are different approaches that can be taken to reduce the use of coal tar-based
sealants. Based on staff’s research, there seem to be two patterns of policy action, outright bans
prohibiting the use and/or sale of the product or broad public education campaigns and strategies to
encourage use of alternate products. Given the phasing out of these products in the marketplace,
proactive education and messaging may provide an effective alternative approach to a ban by educating
residents on the effects of coal tar and encouraging the use of alternative products.
Coal Tar-Based Sealant Memorandum
Environmental Sustainability Committee
1/15/2021
3
City staff is seeking Committee direction on whether the City should consider preparing an ordinance
banning the use of coal tar-based sealants in Lake Forest, or if an alternate approach should be
undertaken.
Summary and Next Steps
There has been growing interest within the region to consider ordinances and/or other policies that
discourage the use of coal tar-based sealants. While the retail availability of coal tar-based sealants
seems to be diminishing as a result of local advocacy and policy pressure, some communities have opted
for more proactive marketing and education where potential administration and enforcement challenges
exist.
Staff will present more information on this topic to the Committee during its regular meeting.
Attachments
• The Use, Impact, and Ban of Coal Tar-Based Sealants (2016)
• Des Plaines River Watershed Workgroup Newsletter (May 2020)
• Lake Forest Coal Tar Brochure
• Coal Tar Ordinance (Village of Deerfield)
• Coal Tar Ban Information Guide (Village of Winnetka)
COAL TAR-BASED SEALANT
BACKGROUND MATERIAL
The Use, Impact, and Ban of Coal Tar-
Based Sealants
Hannah Needleman
Virginia Coastal Policy Center
at William & Mary Law School
Class of 2016
FALL 2015
2
Contact Us
Please contact Roy
Hoagland at rahoagland@
wm.edu if you have
comments, questions, or
suggestions.
About the Author
Hannah Needleman is a member of the 2016 class at the William &
Mary Law School. Her experience with the W&M Virginia Coastal
Policy Center in the spring of 2015 preceded a summer clerkship
with the Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters office in
Washington, DC. Her undergraduate degree is in biology from the
University of Florida and her past employment has included work with
the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) in Rome,
Italy. Hannah is on the staff of the W&M Journal of Women and the
Law.
About the Virginia Coastal Policy Center
The Virginia Coastal Policy Center (VCPC) at the College of William & Mary Law School
provides science-based legal and policy analysis of ecological issues affecting the state's
coastal resources, providing education and advice to a host of Virginia’s decision-makers,
from government officials and legal scholars to non-profit and business leaders.
With two nationally prominent science partners – the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, one of the largest marine research and education centers in the United States,
and Virginia Sea Grant, a nationally recognized broker of scientific information – VCPC
works with scientists, local and state political figures, community leaders, the military,
and others to integrate the latest science with legal and policy analysis to solve coastal
resource management issues. VCPC activities are inherently interdisciplinary, drawing
on scientific, economic, public policy, sociological, and other expertise from within the
College and across the country. With access to internationally recognized scientists at
VIMS, to Sea Grant’s national network of legal and science scholars, and to elected and
appointed officials across the nation, VCPC engages in a host of information exchanges
and collaborative partnerships.
VCPC grounds its pedagogical goals in the law school's philosophy of the citizen
lawyer. VCPC students’ highly diverse interactions beyond the borders of the legal
community provide the framework for their efforts in solving the complex coastal resource
management issues that currently face Virginia and the nation. Whether it is working to
understand the underlying realities of local zoning policies or attempting to identify and
reconcile the concerns of multiple stakeholders, VCPC students experience the breadth
of environmental lawyering while gaining skills that will serve them well regardless of the
legal career they pursue upon graduation.
VCPC is especially grateful to Virginia Sea Grant for providing generous funding to
support its ongoing work.
3
I. Introduction
The new Chesapeake Bay Agreement contains commitments to reduce toxics. One
substance receiving an increasing amount of scrutiny is coal tar-based sealant because of
its toxic contributions. This sealant is applied to driveways, parking lots, and other paved
surfaces. This report investigates the use of coal tar-based sealants, their ban, their impacts,
etc., and provides recommendations regarding their future use.
II. Coal Tar-Based Sealants
A. Function
Coal tar-based sealant is a black, shiny substance sprayed or painted on top of asphalt
pavement—including parking lots, driveways, and some playgrounds—to protect
the underlying asphalt.1 Some consumers also believe that the sealant improves the
appearance of the asphalt.2 An estimated 85 million gallons (320 million liters) of
coal tar-based sealant are applied to pavement nationwide each year.3
Coal tar-based sealant is a potent source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs).4 Many PAHs are toxic, carcinogenic, and mutagenic.5 Moreover, some
PAHs are teratogenic (causing birth defects) to aquatic life; there have been no studies
on the developmental effects of PAHs on humans, which raises potential concerns.6
Coal tar is the byproduct of coking coal for the steel industry, and coal tar pitch is 50
percent or more PAHs by weight.7 Coal tar-based sealant is typically 20-35 percent
coal tar pitch8 and typically contains about 50,000 mg/kg (parts per million, or ppm)
PAH.9
Coal tar-based sealant is primarily used east of the Continental Divide in the
United States and parts of Canada, while the alternative, asphalt-based sealant, is
primarily used in the West.10 Coal tar-based sealant contains about 100 times more
PAHs than motor oil and about 1,000 times more PAHs than its alternative, asphalt-
based sealant.11 As a result of coal tar-based sealant application, residential and
commercial/industrial land uses are major urban PAH sources.12
PAHs move from a coal tar-based sealant into our environment by stormwater
runoff, adhesion to tires, wind, foot traffic, and volatilization (see graphic below).
Coal-tar sealcoat is abraded to a fine dust by car tires and snowplows.13 The dust
is then blown, washed, or tracked into nearby soil,14 stormwater ponds,15 streams,16
lakes,17 and into personal residences in the form of settled house dust.18 Following
coal tar-based sealant application, concentrations of PAHs remain elevated for months
in runoff from sealed pavement.19 As a result of this runoff, coal tar-based sealant is
the largest source of PAHs to urban lakes.20
4
Besides coal tar-based sealants, there are many other sources of coal tar and PAHs
in the urban environment. However, these other sources are relatively insignificant,
compared to coal tar-based sealant runoff and manufacturing exposure. Coal tar is
found in some cosmetics and personal care products, such as shampoos and scalp
treatments (specifically for dandruff treatment), soaps, hair dyes, and lotions.21
Moreover, many household products contain PAHs, including mothballs, blacktop,
and wood preservatives.22 In addition, the Austin, Texas, Watershed Protection
Department explains:
Besides urban runoff as a pathway, PAH can originate from atmospheric fallout
of particulates from naturally occurring combustion sources like forest fires or
from fossil fuel combustion - incomplete burning of carbon-containing materials
like oil, wood, garbage, and coal. Automobile exhaust and industrial emissions
are additional sources. They contain high levels of PAHs. More PAHs form
when materials burn at low temperatures such as in wood fires and cigarettes
than in high-temperature furnaces.23
B. Human Health and Environmental Impact
There are significant human health and environmental risks associated with the use
of coal tar-based sealants. The use of coal tar-based sealants is associated with a
38 times greater lifetime cancer risk, especially for young children. Moreover, coal
tar-based sealants have documented, dramatic effects on the environment, such as
inhibiting growth and development of aquatic life, which raises serious concerns for
potential effects on human health.
1. Impact on Human Health
PAHs in settled house dust in residences adjacent to coal tar-based sealed parking lots
are 25 times higher than those in residences adjacent to unsealed or asphalt sealed
lots.24 PAHs are known to cause cancer in humans.25 Living adjacent to pavement
with coal tar-based sealant (such as a parking lot or driveway) increases lifetime
cancer risk up to 38 times – and much of this increased risk occurs during early
childhood (ages 6 and younger).26 There are two main ways individuals are exposed
to PAHs in settled house dust: (1) direct ingestion from hand-to-mouth contact and
(2) indirect ingestion from mouth contact with inanimate objects such as toys (a
serious concern for young children).27 Individuals that live in residences adjacent
to coal tar-sealed parking lots are likely exposed to 14 times the amount of PAHs
through non-dietary means than residents with unsealed pavement. Further, these
high-exposure individuals likely ingest more than twice the amount of PAHs through
dietary means.28
Individuals that work directly with coal tar-based sealants face greater exposure
to PAHs than the general population. Numerous studies indicate that occupational
exposure to coal tar can increase risk of skin, lung, bladder, kidney, and digestive tract
cancers.29 Workers are often exposed to coal tar at foundries; during coke production,
coal gasification, and aluminum production; and while producing or using pavement
tar, roofing tar, coal-tar paints, coal-tar enamels, other coal-tar coatings, or refractory
bricks.30 The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration have all recommended limiting occupational exposure.31
5
2. Impact on the Environment
Coal tar-based sealants also have significant, well-documented negative effects on
the environment. The use of these sealants is associated with slower rates of growth
and diminished ability to swim in salamanders,32 impaired growth and development
of frogs,33 and decreased righting ability and diminished liver enzyme activities in
newts.34 Liver damage is a common result of PAH toxicity in fish.35 Moreover, coal
tar-based sealants and PAHs are associated with a decrease in species richness and
abundance in benthic invertebrates (organisms such as crabs and clams that live on
the bottom of a water body or in the sediment and have no backbone).36 As a result,
the detrimental impacts of PAHs on marine life could harm industries that depend
on these fragile ecosystems. Additionally, there is a possibility of biomagnification
("the sequence of processes in an ecosystem by which higher concentrations of a
particular chemical… are reached
in organisms higher up the food
chain”)37 affecting larger animals
and humans.38 The dramatic
effect of PAHs on marine life also
raises serious concerns about the
unstudied aspects of PAHs on
human health.
3. Environmental Justice
The United States Department of the Interior (DOI) has identified coal tar-based
sealants as an environmental justice issue. In March 2012, the DOI released its
Environmental Justice Strategic Plan for the years 2012-2017, fulfilling a federal
requirement under Executive Order 12898 to address disproportionate adverse
impacts to minority or low-income communities.39 Their vision statement says the
goal is "to provide outstanding management of the natural and cultural resources
entrusted to us in a manner that is sustainable, equitable, accessible, and inclusive of
all populations." The environmental justice implications of coal tar-based sealants
pollution are addressed as part of DOI’s Goal #3 to reduce adverse environmental
impacts on minority and low income populations.40 The report discusses “coal-tar-
based sealcoat . . . as a major source of [PAH] contamination in urban areas for
large parts of the Nation,” and acknowledges that bans like the Washington, DC,
coal tar-based sealant ban could provide a remedy for disproportionately-impacted
communities.41
C. Economic Analysis
1. Response from Area Associations
Gary Hoffman, the Executive Director of Pennsylvania Asphalt Pavement Association
(“an industry group devoted to achieving a high level of quality asphalt paving
products and services”42) explained there is no economic incentive for consumers to
select coal tar-based sealants over asphalt-based sealants. Moreover, a ban on coal tar-
based sealants would not negatively affect the members of the Pennsylvania Asphalt
Pavement Association (PAPA), including asphalt producers, paving contractors,
asphalt suppliers, associates, and engineer and architectural consultants. PAPA
supports a ban on coal tar-based sealants.
6
Patrick Dean, the President of the Associated Builders and Contractors Virginia
Chapter (“a statewide, pro-business association representing construction and
construction-related firms”43) stated, “[t]here is no economic benefit to using coal
tar-based sealants to consumers. It is actually harder for the contractor to attain and
costs more.” Moreover, “[c]ontractors would not feel any impact with a ban as they
would just switch over to the asphalt-based product or [another alternative].”
Caroline Fahed, a spokeswoman for the Virginia Asphalt Association (whose
mission is “to promote the increased use and quality of asphalt pavements in
Virginia”44) agreed that there are no economic advantages for using coal tar-based
sealants over asphalt-based sealants. She noted that while the VAA does not have
an official position on banning coal tar-based sealants, it is a decision that “must be
based on sound, supported science.”
2. Debunking the “Job Killer” Myth
A 2011 report by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Debunking the “Job Killer” Myth:
How Pollution Limits Encourage Jobs in the Chesapeake Bay Region, maintains that
a clean Chesapeake Bay means more jobs–not fewer.45 This report concludes that
environmental regulations spark economic activity and create jobs, despite the
allegations of many opponents. “Virtually all economists who have studied the
jobs-environment issue agree. . . . [T]here has simply been no trade-offs between
jobs and the environment,” wrote Dr. Eban Goodstein, Director of the Center for
Environmental Policy at Bard College, who is quoted in the CBF report.
The report concludes that new pollution limits for the Chesapeake Bay (the
Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load) would create nearly 250,000 jobs
across the watershed. Moreover, the report notes that “[m]ore fish, crabs, and oysters
will provide renewed work opportunities and hope for watermen, processors, packers,
restaurant workers, people in tourism-dependent businesses, and many others.” The
effects of coal tar-based sealants and the associated PAHs on fish, crabs, oysters, and
other aquatic life could be putting these industries and jobs at stake. Baywide bans on
coal tar-based sealants could similarly boost employment in the region both directly,
through cleanup and removal efforts and, indirectly, from healthier fisheries and
expanded aquatic recreation opportunities.
3. Retail Costs
Many major retailers have stopped selling coal tar-based sealants. According to the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, as of 2014, Ace Hardware, Do It Best, Lowe’s,
The Home Depot, and True Value have ceased nationwide distribution of coal tar-
based sealants.46 Moreover, the following regional distributors have stopped selling
coal tar-based sealants: Agway, Menards, United Hardware (including Hardware
Hank and Trustworthy). Furthermore, applicators and suppliers in Wisconsin,
Michigan, North Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Ontario, and Pennsylvania
have committed to phase-out coal tar-based sealants. Most state Departments of
Transportation no longer use coal tar-based sealants, according to the Center for
Environmental Excellence, a research group developed by the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials.47
Historically, most coal tar has been imported into the United States.48 According
to Tom Ennis from Coal Tar Free America (an integral architect of the Austin, Texas
7
ban), approximately ⅔ of U.S. supplies were imported in 2003.49 Ennis explains,
“[t]his point was illustrated by the sealant industry's coal tar shortage in 2006. The
supply ran low here… because of factory problems outside our borders.”
There is limited information available on the price comparison of coal tar-based
sealant and its main alternative, asphalt-based sealant. However, Tom Ennis compares
the retail costs of coal tar-based sealant and asphalt-based sealant via Google on an
annual basis.50 Ennis’s research indicates that since 2001, asphalt-based sealants have
been, on average, just slightly more expensive than coal tar-based sealants. In 2015,
Ennis’ results included four coal tar-based products, costing an average of $15 per
five-gallon bucket. By comparison, Ennis found fourteen asphalt-based sealants,
costing an average of $21. However, Ennis found both types of sealant available for
$13, indicating price parity in some instances at a more affordable price. Ennis also
notes, “Keep in mind that the cost of the two dominant products [coal tar-based
and asphalt-based] are sensitive to the price of fuel and susceptible to interruptions
in the supply chain.” Although coal tar-based sealants may have a lower sticker
cost than asphalt-based sealants, the true cost of coal tar-based sealants, including
environmental costs and PAH cleanup discussed in Part 4 below, can be exorbitant.
4. Cleanup Costs
The cost of cleaning up bodies of water contaminated with PAHs from coal tar-
based sealants is expensive and extensive. In 2012, the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency estimated that cleanup costs for the stormwater ponds contaminated with
PAH runoff could approach $1 to $5 billion in the Twin Cities area alone.51 The
high cost of cleanup is one factor that ultimately drove Minnesota to a statewide ban
of coal tar-based sealants. In 2013, The University of Wisconsin-Extension Solid
and Hazardous Waste Education Center urged Wisconsin communities: “To avoid
additional costs related to disposal of PAH contaminated sediment, municipalities
should consider eliminating a major source of PAHs to their Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems - coal tar-based asphalt sealcoats.”52 Tom Kaldunski, the City
Engineer for Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, gave a presentation in a Fall 2013
webinar on coal tar-based sealants and discussed the costs of cleaning stormwater
ponds and disposing of the PAH contaminated sediment.53 He explained that there
are an estimated potential 140 basins with PAH contaminated sediment, and the
average basin cleaning cost is $150,000. This could cost $21 million for a city with
34,000 residents.
D. Availability of Alternatives
There are many alternatives to coal tar-based sealants readily available on the market
– especially since many major retailers have stopped selling coal tar-based sealants
as discussed in Part B above. The most popular and cheapest alternative to coal
tar-based sealants is petroleum asphalt-based sealant.54 While asphalt-based sealants
do contain PAHs, they contain as little as 1/1000th the PAH level of coal tar-based
sealants.55 According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “Good asphalt
sealcoat emulsions are very affordable, will provide a black appearance for 1-2 years,
and can provide less-visible protection for 2-4 years if properly applied.56
Other alternatives contain fewer or no PAHs, such as gilsonite-based, acrylic-
based, and agricultural oil-based sealants.57 These products tend to be relatively more
expensive, and they have less of an established performance track record than asphalt-
8
based sealants.58 However, as major retailers move away from coal tar-based sealants,
there may be a shift to some of these low and no PAH alternatives.
III. Coal Tar-Based Sealant Bans
This section examines current bans of coal tar-based sealants outside of Maryland, Virginia,
and Pennsylvania, including location and scope. There are two states with statewide coal
tar-based sealant bans, Minnesota and Washington. There are currently four countywide
bans: Dane, Wisconsin; Montgomery County, MD; Prince George's County, MD and
Suffolk, NY. In total, there are eight states/districts with a ban within the boundaries of
the state (Texas, Wisconsin, New York, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota and
District of Columbia), and there are fifteen states/districts with known restrictions within
the boundaries of the state (Texas, Wisconsin, New York, Massachusetts, District of
Columbia, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, Washington, California, Kansas,
Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota and Missouri).
A. Locality Bans
1. Austin, Texas: The First Ban
In 2006, Austin, Texas, adopted the first ban of coal tar-based sealants in the United
States. The City of Austin's City Council voted unanimously to ban the sale and
use of coal tar-based sealants in the city and in its Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. 59
Regarding enforcement, Austin’s Watershed Protection Department says:
Field staff (inspectors, investigators, biologists, etc.) for the Watershed Protection
Department watch for sealant applications in progress and freshly sealed parking
lots as they drive throughout the city on their other job duties. Whenever new
sealant is found, it is screened for the presence of coal tar. Enforcement action
is taken when coal tar-based pavement sealant is found applied after the ban was
initiated. Enforcement actions proceed through municipal court and typically
result in remediation of the applied sealant. The requirement for remediation is
full removal of the coal tar sealant. Besides remediation, legal action can include
fines and jail time.60
The ban has proven to be very effective. In
2010, the City of Austin published the results
of the coal tar-based sealant ban. According
to Nancy McClintock, Assistant Director
of the Watershed Protection Department,
approximately one million pounds of PAHs
have been prevented from entering Austin’s
environment since January 2006. Moreover,
a United States Geological Survey study
conducted in 2014 showed a 58% reduction in
PAH’s in lake sediment from Lady Bird Lake
after the ban.61
9
2. Dane County, Wisconsin
Effective July 1, 2007, Dane County, Wisconsin banned the use, sale, and/or
retail display of coal tar-based sealants.62 Moreover, “[i]t also requires retailers to
prominently display information about the ordinance where customers make their
driveway sealant purchases.” The notice must contain the following language:
The application of coal tar sealcoat products on driveways, parking lots and
all other paved surfaces in Dane County is prohibited by section 80.08 of the
Dane County Code of Ordinances. Coal tar is a significant source of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a group of organic chemicals that can be carried
by stormwater and other runoff into Dane County’s lakes and streams. PAHs are
an environmental concern because they are toxic to aquatic life.63
Any person who violates the ban is subject to subject to a forfeiture of $25 per violation.
3. District of Columbia
Effective July 1, 2009, it is illegal to sell, use, or permit the use of coal tar-based
sealants in the District of Columbia under the Comprehensive Stormwater
Management Enhancement Amendment Act of 2008.64 Any person who violates this
law is subject to a daily fine of up to $2,500.65 According to the District Department
of Environment, “the District of Columbia issued this ban to protect human health
and our environment.”66
Chris Kibler, Environmental Protection Specialist at the District Department of
Environment, worked on the Washington, DC, ban and was able to provide additional
information on the ban.67 According to Kibler, there are no distributors of coal tar-
based sealants in the District of Columbia. Distributors from outside the District of
Columbia bring coal tar-based sealants into the District of Columbia, which makes
coal tar-based sealants difficult to regulate. Because there are no manufacturers or
distributors in the District of Columbia, the Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Enhancement Amendment Act of 2008 only regulates contractors and end users in the
District of Columbia. Kibler explained that the District of Columbia would benefit
from having neighboring states (such as Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania)
regulate manufacturers and distributors of coal tar-based sealants to prevent these
sealants from coming into the District of Columbia.
Kibler outlined how the District Department of Environment (DDE) enforces the
ban on coal tar-based sealants in the District of Columbia. There are approximately
17,000 parking lots and driveways that potentially could be sealed with coal tar-based
sealants in the District of Columbia. The DDE performs seventy-five inspections
every year and has developed a field test to detect coal tar-based sealants during these
inspections. First, an inspector removes a small piece of sealant with a razor blade
and places it into a solvent. If the sealant does not dissolve after being placed in the
solvent, that is an indication that the sealant could be coal tar-based. Second, a DDE
official will talk to the owner of the parking lot or driveway and inspect contractor
records. Finally, DDE sends a sample of the sealant to a lab in Texas for analysis that
indicates with certainty whether the sealant is coal tar-based.
Kibler also described another innovative enforcement technique. The DDE uses
aerial imagery (a GIS based model) that can help determine changes in parking lot
color that could indicate the use of coal tar-based sealants. Pavements sealed with coal
10
tar-based sealants do not oxidize like their asphalt-based counterparts, therefore they
remain very dark-colored. The DDE can use GIS technology to find dark parking
lots and driveways. After identifying dark parking lots and driveways, the DDE then
performs a field test on the pavement and sends a sample to Texas.
Once the DDE identifies parking lots and driveways with coal tar-based sealant,
it requires the owner to remove the product. If the owner fails to remediate the
property, the DDE can issue a civil penalty, and requires the owner to provide them
with a plan for removal within thirty days of notification. The DDE will provide
extensions in exigent circumstances (if, for example, if the weather does not allow
removal). Kibler explained that fall and spring are the best times to remove coal tar-
based sealant.
4. Suffolk County, New York
Suffolk County, New York, enacted a ban on coal tar-based sealants effective January
1, 2012.68 “Violation of this law shall be subject to a civil fine of five hundred dollars
($500.00) for an initial violation, with a penalty of seven hundred fifty dollars
($750.00) for any subsequent violations.”
B. State Bans
1. Washington
Washington was the first state to ban the use of coal tar-based sealants on April 13,
2011. The statewide ban specifically prohibits the sale of coal tar in Washington
after 2012 and prevents the application of coal tar after 2013.69 Joan Crooks of the
Washington Environmental Council remarked, “This bill is another big step forward
to ensure we are protecting children’s health and the environment from harmful
water pollutants.”70 Rep. David Frockt, who sponsored the bill, said “I’m proud we
passed the first statewide ban against this nasty toxic threat before it can further
contaminate our waters and threaten the health of our people. We are the first, but
we won’t be the last, because we are leading the nation in the right direction.”
Joshua Grice, Research Analyst for the Washington State Department of Ecology,
was contacted about the Washington ban, and he explained, “The ban in Washington
was aided by a general consensus that coal tar sealants were not in wide use here.”71
Moreover, the Department of Transportation had already moved away from using
coal tar-based sealants. Holly Davies, who was involved in the legislative history of
the ban at the Washington State Department of Ecology, added, “[I]t’s hard to defend
smelly, black, carcinogens.”72 Prior to the ban, the United States Geological Service
had tested two lakes in the state, Lake Washington and Lake Ballinger, and found
coal tar contamination in both. Davies revealed, “An environmental advocate gave
the paper to a legislator whose district includes Lake Ballinger and he wrote up a bill
to ban coal tar sealants.”
2. Minnesota
Minnesota was the second state to ban the use of coal tar-based sealants. Effective
January 1, 2014, the Minnesota Legislature banned the sale and use of coal tar-based
sealants.73 Prior to this statewide ban, Minnesota had twenty-nine local bans,74 and
in 2009, Minnesota restricted state agencies from purchasing coal tar-based sealant
effective July 1, 2010.75 In addition, the Minnesota Legislature provided small grants
to local governments for voluntarily treating or disposing of contaminated sediment
11
in stormwater ponds, provided that the governments restrict the use of undiluted
coal tar-based sealant. This law is codified under Minnesota Statutes section 116.202,
accessible at https://www.revisor.mn.gov.
Al Innes, Safer Product Chemistry Coordinator at the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, worked on the Minnesota ban and was able to provide additional
information about the ban.76 Innes explained that the success with the local bans
and the voluntary grant-based program was integral to the adoption of the statewide
ban. The popularity of local bans demonstrated that cities were concerned about
the use of coal tar-based sealants; there was a lot of support for a statewide ban in
policy committees and cities. The restriction on government agencies in 2009 also
served as a stepping-stone to the statewide ban. Moreover, PAHs attach to suspended
particles in the water and settle at the bottom, and settlement contamination issues
were becoming more apparent and more concerning in Minnesota. In 2012, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency estimated that cleanup costs for stormwater
ponds contaminated with PAH runoff could approach $1 to $5 billion in the Twin
Cities area alone.
IV. Bans in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are the three keystone states of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Out of the three, only Maryland has attempted to present legislation banning
coal tar-based sealants. However, the Maryland legislation was ultimately unsuccessful.
Since then, two counties in Maryland have successfully enacted countywide bans
prohibiting the use of coal tar-based sealants.
A. Maryland: Unsuccessful Legislation
On February 1, 2012, Delegate Dana Stein sponsored legislation (HB 369) to ban
coal tar-based sealants in Maryland, but he ultimately withdrew the bill. In a report
on February 2, 2012, Del. Dana Stein said this about HB 369:
This bill seeks to prohibit the use of a pavement sealant applied to asphalt surfaces
known as coal tar. Coal tar pitch has been classified as a “known carcinogen” by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Along with being washed
into our streams and waterways, coal tar residue can enter the home on the soles
of shoes that have come into contact with a sealed surface, which leaves children
especially susceptible to contamination. The alternative to coal tar sealants is
comparably priced. Passage of this bill will make our environment cleaner and
our neighborhoods healthier places to live.77
Some believe that this legislation failed to pass because of pressure from industry
during a public hearing by the Environmental Subcommittee. According to Coal Tar
Free America, industry representatives made “many exaggerations and false claims”78
during the hearing. Some such claims include: “There is no link showing harm
between coal tar and humans” and “3000 jobs would be lost if the ban were to take
effect.”79
B. Montgomery County, Maryland
As of December 18, 2012, Montgomery County, Maryland banned the use of coal
tar-based sealant, the first ban of coal tar-based sealants in Maryland. According to
Montgomery County, “The use of a coal-tar based sealant can subject the applicator
12
and the property owner to a fine of up to $1,000.”80 The penalty provision of the
bill is:
Any violation of this Chapter is a Class A violation. However, notwithstanding
Section 1-19, the maximum penalty for a civil violation of Article I is $1,000 for
an initial or repeat offense. Each day a violation continues is a separate offense.81
C. Prince George’s County, Maryland
Prince George’s County, Maryland, enacted the second ban of coal tar-based sealants
in Maryland. “Effective July 1, 2015, it is illegal to sell, use or permit the use of
coal tar pavement products on property in Prince George's County. Contractors or
property owners that use a coal tar pavement product are subject to a fine of up to
$1,000 per day for each violation.”
The bans in the District of Columbia, Montgomery County, and Prince George’s
County have made the Anacostia Watershed the first multi-jurisdictional, coal tar-based
sealant-free watershed in the United States.
V. Conclusion
The use of coal tar–based sealants is highly controversial. However, evidence suggests that
the costs of use of coal tar-based sealants greatly outweigh the benefits of use. Although
asphalt-based sealants are slightly more expensive, the environmental costs of coal tar-
based sealants far outweigh the cheaper retail cost as the cleanup cost of coal tar-based
sealants and PAHs is exorbitant. Moreover, the extent of the risk as well as cost of coal
tar-based sealants and PAHs to human health is currently unknown.
One can conclude that the economic analysis actually favors banning coal tar-based
sealants. It is arguable that a ban of coal tar-based sealants would not have a negative
economic impact:
• The use of coal tar-based sealants hurts industries that rely on healthy populations of
fish, crabs, and oyster.
• The continued use of coal tar-based sealants will increase the already high cost of
cleanup.
• The cleanup and removal of coal tar-based sealants could create jobs in the region.
• Major retailers have already stopped selling the product, so consumers are already
encouraged to purchase alternatives.
The Chesapeake Bay is a unique and precious resource. As the largest estuary in
North America and the third largest in the world, one supporting more than 17 million
people who live, work, and play within the watershed, 10 million of whom live along
or near the Bay's shores, the use of coal tar-based sealants in Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania does pose a threat to the Bay watershed’s environment and the health of
its residents. Statewide bans in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania would best serve
the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding communities. Maryland, like Minnesota, has
been very successful at enacting countywide bans, which could be indicative of a greater
receptivity to a statewide ban in Maryland than in Virginia and Pennsylvania at this time.
Without implementing statewide bans, the Chesapeake Bay remains unprotected from
the pollution and risks associated with coal tar-based sealants.
13
VI. Attachments
14
15
16
17
References
1 B.J. Mahler & Van Metre, P.C., Coal-Tar-Based Pavement Sealcoat, Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Environmental Health, U.S. Geological Survey (2011),
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3010/pdf/fs2011-3010.pdf.
2 Id.
3 Mateo Scoggins, Tom Ennis, Nathan Parker, & Chris Herrington, A Photographic
Method for Estimating Wear of Coal Tar Sealcoat from Parking Lots, 43 ENV. SCI. &
TECH. 4909 (2009), http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es9003119.
4 Mahler, supra, note 1, at 6.
5 Kim Gehle, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): How Do PAHs Induce Patho-
genic Changes?, U.S Dept. of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substanc-
es and Disease Registry (2012), http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=13&po
=10#tocbookmark2.
6 Fraunhofer Institute of Toxicology and Aerosol Research, Environmental Health Criteria
202: Selected non-heterocyclic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, World Health Orga-
nization, International Programme on Chemical Safety (1998), http://www.inchem.org/
documents/ehc/ehc/ehc202.htm; Mahler, supra, note 1, at 5.
7 Mahler, supra, note 1, at 2.
8 Id.
9 Texas Water Science Center, USGS Research: PAHs and Coal-Tar-Based Pavement
Sealcoat, http://tx.usgs.gov/sealcoat.html.
10 Mahler, supra, note 1, at 3.
11 Texas Water Science Center, supra, note 9.
12 Amy Witter, Mihn Nguyen, Sunil Baidar, & Peter Sak, Coal-tar-based sealcoated pave-
ment: A major PAH source to urban stream sediments, ENVIRONMENTAL POLLU-
TION, 59 (2014), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113005435.
13 Texas Water Science Center, supra, note 9
14 Peter Van Metre, Barbara Mahler, & Jennifer Wilson, PAHs Underfoot: Contaminated
Dust from Coal-Tar Sealcoated Pavement is Widespread in the United States, 43 ENV.
SCI. & TECH. 20 (2009), http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es802119h
15 Barbara Mahler, Peter Van Metre, Judy Crane, Alison Watts, Mateo Scoggins, & E.
Spencer Williams, Coal-Tar-Based Pavement Sealcoat and PAHs: Implications for the
Environment, Human Health, and Stormwater Management, 46 ENV. SCI. & TECH.
3039 (2012), http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es203699X.
16 R.T. Pavlowsky, Coal-tar pavement sealant use and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
contamination in urban stream sediments, 34 PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY 392 (2013),
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02723646.2013.848393#.VS_ytVy_vD2.
17 Peter Van Metre, Barbara Mahler, Contribution of PAHs from coal–tar pavement
sealcoat and other sources to 40 U.S. lakes, 409 SCI. OF THE TOTAL ENV. 334 (2010),
http://tx.usgs.gov/coring/pubs/Van%20Metre%20PAH%20sources%20STOTEN2010.
pdf.
18 Barbara Mahler, Peter Metre, Jennifer Wilson, MaryLynn Musgrove, Teresa Burbank,
Thomas Ennis, Thomas Bashara, Coal-tar-based parking lot sealcoat: An unrecognized
source of PAH to settled house dust. 44(3) Env. Sci. & Tech. 894 (2010), http://pubs.acs.
org/doi/abs/10.1021/es902533r.
19 Peter Van Metre & Barbara Mahler, PAH Concentrations in Lake Sediment Decline Fol-
lowing Ban on Coal-Tar-Based Pavement Sealants in Austin, Texas, 38 Env. Sci. & Tech.
7222 (2014), http://tx.usgs.gov/coring/pubs/PAHConcentrationsArticle.pdf.
20 Van Metre, et. al, Contribution of PAHs to 40 lakes, supra, note 17.
21 Coal Tar, CAMPAIGN FOR SAFE COSMETICS, http://www.safecosmetics.org/get-the-
facts/chemicals-of-concern/coal-tar/.
22 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), WISCONSIN DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pah.htm.
18
23 Coal Tar: Frequently Asked Questions, “Other sources of PAH in the environment be-
sides coal tar pavement sealants”, AUSTIN WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPT., https://
www.austintexas.gov/content/1616/FAQ/2511.
24 Mahler, et. al, supra, note 18.
25 International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Atlanta,
GA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1995.
26 E. Spencer Williams, Barbara Mahler, & Peter Van Metre, Cancer risk from incidental
ingestion exposures to PAHs associated with coal-tar-sealed pavement, 47(2) ENV. SCI.
& TECH. 1101 (2012), http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es303371t.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 National Toxicology Program, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Coal Tars and
Coal-Tar Pitches, 13 REPORT OF CARCINOGENS (2014), http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/
roc/content/profiles/coaltars.pdf.
30 Coal Tar and Coal-Tar Pitch, NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, http://www.cancer.gov/
cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk/substances/coal-tar.
31 Public Health Statement for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), AGENCY
FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES & DISEASE REGISTRY, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.
asp?id=120&tid=25.
32 Thomas Bommarito, Donald Spalding, & Richard Halbrook, Toxicity of coal-tar pave-
ment sealants and ultraviolet radiation to Ambystoma Maculatum, 19(6) ECOTOXICOL-
OGY 1147 (2010), http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10646-010-0498-8.
33 P. J. Breyer, J. N. Elliott, & E. J. Willingham, The effects of coal tar based pavement
sealer on amphibian development and metamorphosis, 15(3) ECOTOXICOLOGY 241
(2006), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16557355.
34 Thomas Bommarito, Donald Sparling, & Richard Halbrook, Toxicity of coal–tar and as-
phalt sealants to eastern newts, Notophthalmus viridescens, 81(2) CHEMOSPHERE 187
(2010), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653510007320
35 Mark Myersa, Lyndal Johnson & Tracy Collier, Establishing the Causal Relationship
between Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Exposure and Hepatic Neoplasms
and Neoplasia-Related Liver Lesions in English Sole (Pleuronectes vetulus), 9(1) HU-
MAN & ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 67 (2003), http://www.tandfonline.com/
doi/abs/10.1080/713609853#.VS_X9Fy_vD0; M. S. Shailaja, C. D'Sillva, Evaluation of
impact of PAH on a tropical fish, Oreochromis mossambicus using multiple biomark-
ers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14505704.
36 Pamela Bryer, Mateo Scoggins, Nancy McClintock, Coal-tar based pavement sealant
toxicity to freshwater macroinvertebrates, 156(5) ENV. POLLUTION 1932 (2010), http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749109005375; M. Scoggins, N. L.
McClintock, L. Gosselink, & P. Bryer, Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
below coal-tar-sealed parking lots and effects on stream benthic macroinvertebrate
communities, 26(4) J. N. AMERICAN BENTHOLOGICAL SOCIETY 694 (2007), http://
www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1899/06-109.1.
37 Biomagnification, USGS, http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/biomagnification.html.
38 See R. Dadamo, S. Pelosi, P. Trotta, G. Sansone, Bioaccumulation and biomagnifica-
tion of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aquatic organisms, 56 MARINE CHEM-
ISTRY 45 (1997), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422285; I. Takeuchi, et.
al., Biomagnification profiles of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, alkylphenols and
polychlorinated biphenyls in Tokyo Bay elucidated by delta13C and delta15N isotope
ratios as guides to trophic web structure, 58(5) MAR POLLUTION BULLETIN 663,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261300, http://joyeresearchgroup.uga.edu/con-
tent/bioaccumulation-and-biomagnification-polycyclic-aromatic-hydrocarbons-aquatic-
organisms.
39 U.S. Dept. of Interior, Environmental Justice Strategic Plan, 2012-2017, http://www.doi.
19
gov/pmb/oepc/upload/Final-DOI-EJ-SP-March-27-2012.pdf.
40 Goal 3 reads: “The Department will, on its own or in collaboration with partners,
identify and address environmental impacts that may result in disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or tribal
populations.” Id., at 18.
41 See Id., at 20 (“In the District of Columbia the ban was issued to protect human health
and the environment. The ban includes the entire District of Columbia, but the [envi-
ronmental justice] relevance is in the Anacostia River watershed.”).
42 Pennsylvania Asphalt Pavement Association Website, http://www.pa-asphalt.org. Con-
versation with Gary Hoffman, March 18, 2015.
43 Associated Builders and Contractors, VA Chapter Website, http://www.abcva.org/en-
us/abcva/aboutus.aspx. Conversation with Patrick Dean, March 18, 2015.
44 VA Asphalt Association Website, http://www.vaasphalt.org/about-vaa/about-us/. Con-
versation with Caroline Fahed, March 18, 2015.
45 Chesapeake Bay Found., Debunking the “Job Killer” Myth, How Pollution Limits En-
courage Jobs (2011), http://www.cbf.org/document.doc?id=1023.
46 MN Pollution Control Agency, Actions to restrict or discontinue the use of Coal Tar-
Based Sealants in the United States (Current as of Dec. 2, 2014), http://www.pca.state.
mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=16180.
47 Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO Stormwater Management Commu-
nity of Practice, STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE REPORT: EPA Post-Construction Stormwater
Control Rulemaking (2011), http://environment.transportation.org/pdf/communities_of_
practice/stormwatercopjan2011.pdf.
48 Carbon products and organic chemicals from coal, COAL ONLINE, http://www.
coalonline.info/site/coalonline/content/browser/81369/Carbon-products-and-organic-
chemicals-from-coal#.
49 FAQ, COAL TAR FREE AMERICA, http://coaltarfreeamerica.blogspot.com/p/references.
html#where%20does%20coal%20tar%20for%20sealant%20come%20from.
50 CTS v. Asphalt-Based Sealant: How do the Costs Compare?, COAL TAR FREE
AMERICA (2011), http://coaltarfreeamerica.blogspot.com/2011/03/cts-vs-asphalt-based-
sealant-how-do.html; Annual Sealant Price Comparison: Asphalt Drops Twice as Much
vs. Coal Tar, Id., http://coaltarfreeamerica.blogspot.com/2012/03/annual-sealant-price-
comparison-asphalt.html; 2013 Coal Tar vs. Asphalt Sealer Price Comparison, Id., http://
coaltarfreeamerica.blogspot.com/2013/03/2013-coal-tar-vs-asphalt-sealer-price.html;
2014 Asphalt vs. Coal Tar Sealer Prices: Coasts Outpace Inflation, Id., http://coaltarfree-
america.blogspot.com/2014/07/driveway-sealer-costs-outpace-inflation.html.
51 National Park Service, State of the River Report: Water Quality and River Health in
the Metro Mississippi River, http://www.nps.gov/miss/learn/nature/upload/SOTR-2nd-
Edition-v2-022213.pdf.
52 Solid & Hazardous Waste Education Center, Avoiding High Costs from Stormwater
Sediment Contaminated by Coal Tar-Based Asphalt Sealcoats, http://www4.uwm.edu/
shwec/publications/cabinet/p2/Stormwater%20Utilities%206-7-13.pdf.
53 City of Inver Grove Heights, MN, City Project No. 2012-15 – Sediment Removal from
Storm Water Basin (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons), https://docs.google.com/view-
er?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxncmVhdGxha2VzcGFocmVkdWN
0aW9ufGd4OmU5NjFjYjMwYjYxYmU2Yg.
54 MN Pollution Control Agency, Choosing alternatives to coal tar-based pavement
sealcoats: Guidance for property owners, associations and managers, http://www.pca.
state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/stormwater/stormwater-man-
agement/great-lakes-coal-tar-sealcoat-pah-reduction-project/choosing-alternatives-to-
coal-tar-based-pavement-sealcoats.html#more-on-why-to-move-away-from-coal-tar-
click-on-bar-to-expand.
55 Texas Water Science Center, supra, note 9.
56 MN Pollution control Agency, supra, note 54.
20
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Austin City Code § 6-6, et. seq., available at https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/
files/files/Watershed/coaltar_ordinance.pdf.
60 Austin Watershed Protection Dept., supra, note 23, “Coal Tar Ban Enforcement”.
61 USGS, Austin Coal Tar Sealant Ban Leads to Decline in PAHs, https://www.austintexas.
gov/sites/default/files/files/Watershed/coaltar/PAH-News-Release-2014.pdf.
62 Dane County Code, Ch. 80, available at https://pdf.countyofdane.com/ordinances/
ORD080.pdf; Van Metre, et. al., PAH Concentrations in Lake Sediment Decline Fol-
lowing Ban in Austin, supra, note 19.
63 Id., at 80.04(5).
64 D.C. Code § 8-153.01, available at http://green.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/
publication/attachments/Coal%20Tar%20Law.pdf.
65 Id.
66 Coal Tar Ban in the District of Columbia, DC.gov, http://dc.gov/service/coal-tar-ban-
district-columbia.
67 Conversation with Chris Kibler, April 3, 2015.
68 Resolution No. 440 (2011), Adopting Local Law No. 27, http://legis.suffolkcountyny.
gov/Resos2011/i1162-11.pdf.
69 First in nation ban on toxic coal tar sealants passes WA state legislature, WASHING-
TON ENV. COUNCIL, http://wecprotects.org/press-room/press-releases/first-in-nation-
ban-on-toxic-coal-tar-sealants-passes-wa-state-legislature.
70 Id.
71 Conversation with Joshua Grice, February 17, 2015.
72 Conservation with Holly Davies, February 18, 2015.
73 MN Pollution Control Agency, Restriction on Coal Tar-Based Sealants, http://www.pca.
state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/stormwater/municipal-stormwa-
ter/restriction-on-coal-tar-based-sealants.html.
74 Coal Tar Sealant Bans, COAL TAR FREE AMERICA, http://coaltarfreeamerica.blogspot.
com/p/bans.html.
75 U.S. EPA, Stormwater Best Management Practice: Coal-Tar Sealcoat, Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and Stormwater Pollution, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
coaltar.pdf; Dale Thompson, Coal tar based seal coat for driveways and parking
lots, MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, http://www.metrocitiesmn.org/vertical/
sites/%7B63D48B3B-FE99-433B-BCDD-78BBF3D7629D%7D/uploads/%7B72B795DA-
432C-4019-A28F-622D3DEB5AD5%7D.PDF.
76 Conversation with Al Innes, February 23, 2015.
77 Dana Stein, House of Delegates, http://danastein.com/wp-content/
uploads/2012/11/2012_02_3-Annapolis-Report.pdf.
78 MD Drops Sealant Ban After Industry Bluster, COAL TAR FREE AMERICA, http://coal-
tarfreeamerica.blogspot.com/2012/03/md-drops-sealant-ban-after-industry.html.
79 Id.
80 Coal tar Pavement Sealants are Prohibited in Montgomery County, DEPT. OF ENVI-
RONMENTAL PROTECTION, http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DEP/water/coal-
tar-ban.html.
81 Montgomery County Code § 19-70, available at http://montgomeryco-md.elaws.us/
code/coor_ptii_ch19_artvi_sec19-70.
Des Plaines River Watershed
Workgroup Newsletter
May 2020
2
2019 Annual Monitoring Report
The DRWW 2019 Annual Monitoring Report was submitted to the Illinois EPA on March 26, 2020 to meet the DRWW Mem-
ber Agencies Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) requirement for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit Special Condition related to monitoring of receiving streams and to meet the monitoring component for its
Member Agencies Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permits. Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI), Suburban
Laboratories and North Shore Water Reclamation District (NSWRD) have started the 2020 water quality monitoring efforts.
Annual Monitoring Updates
DRWW 2020 Monitoring Strategy
Water Column Sampling
»73 Monitoring locations x5 collections, x4 summer collections for
nutrients
»Add dissolved reactive phosphorus & ammonia nitrogen parameters
»Remove metals & organics
»Reduce E.coli, conductivity, chloride, sulfate to x2 collections
Sediment Sampling (6-year rotation)
»Tier 1 & 2 Sites - focusing on metals and organic chemical analysis
Bioassessment Monitoring Program (6-year rotation)
»Starting in 2020 - Biannual collection on 14 core sites & 6 Des Plaines
River main stem sites
Continuous Monitoring & Chlorophyll a Sampling
»Data sondes at 3 sites (13-6, 13-1, 16-4) for year round collection of
dissolved oxygen (DO), water temperature, total suspended solids
(TSS), pH, chlorophyll a and conductivity
»14 core sites: annual collection of benthic chlorophyll a, and 4 sum-
mer samples of sestonic chlorophyll
Year 2 Biological & Water Quality Assessment of Upper Des Plaines River
In 2018, the DRWW contracted with the MBI to conduct chemical, physical and biological monitoring at 19 locations on the
Des Plaines River and tributaries (Figure 1). This is part of an ongoing yearly monitoring effort which focuses on identifying
the presence, extent and severity of aquatic life impairments, and identifying stressors for identified impairments and limita-
tions to general use attainment. The report identified 13 causes of non-attainment; the most common causes were organic
enrichment/low dissolved oxygen, siltation and embeddedness, macroinvertebrate habitat, and PAH/metals/toxicity. Five of
the 19 sites were identified as fully supporting aquatic life. This is the first time full
support of aquatic life has been observed in the Des Plaines River study area!
The monitoring data indicates that biological impairments in the upper 10 miles of
the study area are primarily influenced by legacy hydraulic and habitat alterations
from agricultural land uses causing slow flows, excessive siltation, and nuisance
algal/aquatic plant growth. The four uppermost monitoring sites will likely never
achieve attainment of the Aquatic Life General Use through water quality improve-
ments alone; habitat improvements would also be needed. The effects of the hy-
draulic and habitat alterations in the upper main stem are mitigated by the addition
of large volumes of treated wastewater downstream of Mill Creek, as shown by the
attainment of the aquatic life general use for four consecutive sites downstream of
the NSWRD Gurnee Water Reclamation Facility and the improvement of multiple
chemical, habitat, and biological indicators. The biological impairments in the lower
portions of the study area are primarily influenced by suburban and urban land uses
resulting in high concentrations of PAHs/metals/toxicity in sediment . Water quality
has substantially improved since the 1980’s and the new attainment of aquatic life
general use indicates conditions are continuing to improve.
IPS Model & NARP
The Integrated Prioritization System (IPS) model version
1.2 was released by the Midwest Biodiversity Institute
(MBI) in February 2020. IPS model future users (including
the DRWW) are currently reviewing the model and user
manual and providing feedback. MBI is currently compiling
additional regional monitoring data to add into the model.
The IPS model is anticipated to be released to the local
workgroups in 2020.
In April 2020, Geosyntec completed a Preliminary Nutrient
Assessment Reduction Plan (NARP) Workplan to assist the
DRWW in identifying the scope, schedule and budget for
the significant effort that will be required to develop the
NARP. DRWW submitted a copy of the Preliminary NARP
Workplan to the Illinois EPA, with a request to consider ex-
tending the NARP submittal by one year, to December 31,
2024, or alternately for the Illinois EPA to assist in defining
methods and resulting products that could allow for a less
costly approach to achieve the same result.
Figure 1
2019 Lake Monitoring Summary
Lake Charles
LCHD monitored 3 lake inlets on Lake Charles, one on north side and two on
the central east and west boundary, as well as an south end outlet structure
(Figure 2). Inlet 1 had the highest concentration of total suspended solids
(TSS). During major precipitation events murky brown stormwater was
observed entering the lake and carp found stirring up sediment in that inlet
area. Inlet 2 had the highest total phosphorus (TP). Upstream of this inlet is
an intermittent flashy stream, which flows through a golf course property
prior to discharging into the inlet, which may be a major contributor of total
phosphorus to this inlet.
Big Bear Lake
LCHD monitored 7 inlets including Seavey Ditch (Inlet) on Big Bear Lake (Fig-
ure 3). The surrounding inlets in the Bear Lakes have an intermittent flow that
can only be sampled after a significant rain event. Seavey Ditch (flows out of
Lake Charles) sampling had the highest flow rate and largest range for pollut-
ant concentrations. For example, TSS (4.7 mg/L) and TP (0.038 mg/L) concen-
trations were relatively low in the June samples; whereas, TSS (28 mg/L) and
TP (0.148 mg/L) concentrations in the July post storm event samples were
substantially higher. Comparatively, the Lake Charles outlet has a lower TP
(.067 mg/L), TSS (9.0 mg/L), and chloride (Cl¯) (100.0 mg/L) than the concen-
trations at Big Bear Inlet. There are several detention basins that flow into
Seavey Ditch before it reaches Big Bear Lake where there are slight increases
in TP (0.072 mg/L), TSS (10.9 mg/L), and Cl¯ (99.4 mg/L).
Little Bear Lake
LCHD monitored 4 inlets on Little Bear Lake (Figure 3). Inlet 5 on the south-
east side of the lake was only sampled twice after storm events but had the
highest TSS concentration (avg. 19.3 mg/L) and TP concentration (avg. 0.109
mg/L). During major precipitation events murky brown stormwater was ob-
served entering the lake in that inlet area. Since the focus of these lakes were
on shallow impoundment lakes, the only lake that was stratified, and there-
fore was able to run a WiLMs model for TP loading was Little Bear Lake.
The DRWW contracted with the Lake County Health Department (LCHD) to conduct monitoring of the lakes and respective
inlets/outlets to assess the current state of water quality and to determine inlet sources of nutrients and pollutants. This
monitoring effort focused on man-made/impoundment lakes (Big Bear, Little Bear and Charles Lake) and was a continua-
tion of the 2018 lake monitoring which focused on glacial stratified lakes (Gages, Druce and Third Lake). The two-year study
provides a good representation of lakes within the Des Plaines River watershed.
The lakes monitored in 2019 are all hydrologically connected. Lake Charles is at the top of the watershed and flows into
Big Bear, which subsequently flows into Little Bear. The water then flows into the Seavy Drainage Ditch – Indian Creek and
ultimately the Des Plaines River. Monthly water samples (May – Sept.), and three additional storm event samples, were col-
lected at each monitoring site during 2019. If feasible, flow rates were measured during sampling. Inlet/outlet samples were
analyzed for 7 water quality parameters. Additionally, in-lake epilimnetic and when applicable hypolimnetic water samples
were collected, along with a depth profile analysis during each monthly visit
which were then used to calculate anoxic volumes. Additional water chemis-
try parameters were analyzed for the in-lake samples. The complete dataset
and full report for the lake monitoring will be available on DRWW’s website in
June 2020.
3
Figure 2
Figure 3
Charles Brown Detention Basin Enhancements & Sediment Forebays
The Village of Libertyville was awarded an Illinois EPA Section 319
project grant in January 2019 for Charles Brown Detention Basin En-
hancements and Sediment Forebays. Prior to project implementation,
the site conditions were extremely poor with sediment accumulation,
degraded habitat, and deteriorated shoreline along the basin edges.
Lake Charles is currently identified as an impaired water body on the
Illinois EPA’s 2018 303(d) list for TSS, TP and Aquatic Plants (Macro-
phytes).
The DRWW provided a letter of support with education and outreach
cost-share match towards that grant, including newsletter project up-
dates and providing project information at DRWW General Member-
ship meetings. Currently, the earthwork has been completed, three
sediments forebays totaling 0.8 acres (2 at inlet points and 1 near the outlet) and storm sewers have been installed and the
urban stormwater restoration (7.32 acres) is underway (See Figure 4). The wetland enhancement and sediment forebays will
provide substantial water quality benefits to downstream waters such as: Lake Charles, Big Bear Lake, Little Bear lake, Indian
Creek and the Des Plaines River. The estimated project completion is Summer 2020.
DRWW Encourages Municipalities to Adopt Coal-Tar -Sealant Ban
The DRWW has found elevated concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) within Des Plaines River and oth-
er tributary sediment samples. Concentrations of total PAH compounds
up to 70,000 mg/kg (dry wt. basis) were found in both the highly pop-
ulated Indian Creek and Bull Creek subwatersheds. Common sources of
these chemical compounds are the use of coal-tar-sealants on drive -
ways and parking lots, where precipitation runs off these surfaces car-
rying PAHs into the waterways. Studies conducted by the USGS indicate
that PAH’s found in coal-tar sealants increase the risk of multiple types
of cancers (lung, skin, bladder, and respiratory) for humans and cause
DNA damage or death to fish.
In response to the increasing PAH concentrations in the Des Plaines Riv-
er, communities are passing coal-tar-sealant bans. In Lake County, High-
land Park, Deerfield, North Barrington, Third Lake and Vernon Hills have
passed such bans, joining other Illinois communities such as Glenview,
Winnetka, Wilmette, Evanston, South Barrington, and Port Barrington.
The Lake County Board’s newly adopted Legislative Agenda for Fiscal
Year 2020 supports state legislation that bans the use and sale of toxic
pavement sealants. In addition to enacting community bans, there is
broad support among local governments for state legislation that bans
the use and sale of toxic pavement sealants in support of safer, effective
alternatives, like asphalt, which have fewer toxic chemicals. On average,
PAH levels in asphalt-based sealants are 1,000 times lower than in coal
tar sealant.
4
Education & Outreach
The DRWW urges municipalities to adopt
a coal-tar-sealant ban! To see a sample of
what other communities have implemented,
the Deerfield ordinance, a vendor license
application, and supplemental information
can be found on the website of The Village
of Deerfield here: https://www.deerfield.
il.us/708/Coal-Tar-Sealant-Ban.
Figure 5: USGS Coal-Tar-Based Pavement Seal-
coat and PAHs (2012)
DRWW Executive Board Members
• President: Al Giertych, LCDOT
• Vice President: Vacant
• Treasurer: Michael Talbett, Village of
Kildeer
• Secretary: Paul Kendzior, Village of
Libertyville
• Member at Large: Jim Anderson, LCFPD
• Member at Large: Dave Miller, NSWRD
• Monitoring/Water Quality Improvements
Committee Chair: Joe Robinson, NSWRD
• Lakes Committee Chair: Mike Adam, LCHD
Figure 4
Coal Tar-Based Sealants
www.CityofLakeForest.com
Public Works Department
• Building Maintenance
• Engineering
• Fleet Maintenance
• Sanitation
• Streets
• Water Plant
• Water & Sewer
Contact Public Works
for more information
847-810-3542
Guidelines for Sealing Your Driveway
or Other Paved Surfaces in Lake Forest
Understanding Health Risks & Proper Sealing Procedures
If it is necessary to seal the surface of a driveway, parking lot,
or playground, it is important to understand both the health risks
associated with coal tar-based sealants as well as safer alternative
products before the sealing process begins. Coal tar-based products are
hazardous due to the high amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(or PAHs) that it contains. PAHs are classified as a human carcinogen
and are toxic to people and wildlife.
Potential harm from coal tar-based sealant is highest during the first
two weeks after application due to the prolonged evaporation of PAHS.
The PAHs in coal tar can be inhaled or ingested, and are often carried
indoors through shoes and pets. Children are at higher risk since they
often play on or near driveways and playgrounds sealed with coal tar.
800 N. Field Drive • Lake Fore st, Illinois 60045 • 847. 234 . 2600
The Ecological Impacts
of Coal Tar-Based
Sealant
• The PAHs from coal tar products often
runoff through storm water systems
and ultimately reside in the sediment
of rivers, streams, ponds and lakes.
• As PAHs are eroded from the surface
over time, it damages ecosystems that
it contacts (which includes nearby
lawns, ravines, and the lakefront).
They are especially toxic to fish and
other aquatic life, and should be
avoided where possible.
Alternatives Options
for Coal Tar-Based Sealant
• If you choose to seal your driveway or other
surface, use asphalt-based sealants as
opposed to coal tar-based sealants.
• The United States Geological Survey found that
asphalt-based sealants contain 1/1000th the
amount of PAHS that exist in coal tar-based
sealants.
• If you are not interested in using asphalt sealants
as an alternative, many paving businesses offer a
variety of other products (including acrylic and
latex-based sealants).
What Residents Can Do
• Consider sealing your driveway less often.
• Use an asphalt-based sealant.
• Educate your neighbors about the risks associated
with coal tar-based sealants.
Village of Winnetka
Coal Tar Ban Information Guide
Coal tar is a waste material generated during coal processing (the conversion of coal to coke).
It is often a component of certain types of sealants used to protect and beautify asphalt pavement
such as residential driveways and parking lots.
What is Coal Tar?
Coal tar contains high levels of a class of chemical compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydro
carbons (PAH). Studies show that PAHs are harmful to fish and, with prolonged exposure, pose a
risk of cancer in humans.
Sunlight and vehicle traffic wears down sealants over time and sealcoat flakes are washed away by
rain into bodies of water or carried away by wind into homes.
Research conducted by the City of Austin and the U.S. Geological Survey found that PAH levels
were significantly higher in water runoffs from coal tar sealed driveways.
Why did the Village ban it?
As of August 19, 2014, the use of coal tar-based sealing agents is prohibited on all public and
private driveways, parking lots and other roadway surfaces in the Village of Winnetka. Asphalt-
based sealant products are still acceptable.
All contractors and commercial/multi-family property owners applying pavement sealants must
obtain a Pavement Sealant Applicators License through the Village (renewed annually) and
confirm they do not use products that contain coal tar.
Property owners of single family lots applying sealant themselves do not need a Pavement Sealant
Applicators License.
What does the ban mean?
Use asphalt-based sealants.
Significantly lower PAH level
Sold in most home improvement stores
More common sealant used in the western
United States
Replace asphalt with concrete driveways.
Leave driveways unsealed.
What are my options?
Contact the Village of Winnetka Public Works Department at (847) 716-3568.
Prior to the ban, the Winnetka Environmental and Forestry Commission researched the subject and
presented findings to the Village Council. To view the EFC’s report on coal tar, visit
http://www.villageofwinnetka.org/government/boards-and-commissions/environmental-and-forestry-commission/water
Where can I learn more?
January 2015