Students press council to ban coal‑tar sealants; industry warns of economic impact

A proposal to ban certain coal‑tar pavement sealants drew an unusual scene: a teacher and a group of elementary students presenting scientific slides to the Howard County Council, followed by testimony from local pavement‑sealer manufacturers.

Sponsor Councilman John Weinstein introduced Council Bill 60, saying he was moved by research and by a group of students who raised concerns about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in coal‑tar sealants. Teacher Eric Pellegrino and a group of students described how PAHs in coal‑tar products can wash into waterways, accumulate in house dust near sealed surfaces, and harm aquatic life. The students presented numerical comparisons — for example, citing the probable effect concentration (PEC) for PAHs in sediment and higher concentrations measured in coal‑tar products — and urged the county to adopt a 0.1% PAH limit used in other jurisdictions.

Industry representatives — including Chris Mariani and Doug Gensler of Gem Seal and Tom Decker of SealMaster — said many contractors have shifted away from coal tar and that a 0.1% cutoff risks banning some asphalt‑based alternatives that perform well. Chris Mariani said his plant sells both coal‑tar and alternative sealers and warned a strict threshold could eliminate product lines and jobs at regional plants.

Council members asked clarifying questions about the prevalence of alternatives, enforcement, and whether nearby jurisdictions’ bans have reduced use. No vote was taken; the matter proceeded through the public‑hearing process for further consideration.

What was said: "Coal tar contains ... PAHs that are classified as EPA priority pollutants," the student presenters said during their slideshow. "We hope to add Howard County to the list" of jurisdictions with bans, the students told the council. Industry testimony cautioned that published toxicology studies and human‑health linkages to pavement sealers have not established coal‑tar sealants as a direct carcinogen in the way asbestos or smoking are implicated.

What’s next: The bill remains under consideration; council staff and the sponsor indicated further information and written materials would be accepted for the record.