Loading...
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