6.3. SR 07-09-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REQUEST FOR ACTION TO ITEM NUMBER ~Ia~or and Cirn Council 63 AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY ~Crork Session Jul~r 9, 2012 Rebecca Haug, En~-ironmental administrator ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Coal Tar-Based Sealant (;al Pormer, Citj- administrator REVIEWED BY Peter Beck, City ~ttornei ACTION REQUESTED Discuss the en~-ironmental effects of using coal tar-based sealer products. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Coal tar, a byproduct of coal processing, is a sealant used to renew and protect the surface of parking lots and dri~Tewai s. Though it is more resilient and resistant to petroleum products like gasoline and oil than other types of sealants, it is also l~io«n to contain high levels of chemicals called pol~cj-clic aromatic ln~drocarbons (I' CHs). Some P CHs are known human carcinogens. Studies have shown when coal tar- based sealants are applied them can flake or breakdown and release P CHs that can be deposited into adjacent land, tracked into homes, and carried b~ surface water il~noff into nearb~r waters. These particles then accumulate to potentially harmful le~Tels in sediments. This is a growing concern for local go~Ternments responsible for managing stormwater ponds and disposing of sediments dredged from them as the sediments mad- require disposal as hazardous «-aste. Disposal costs of P ~H contaminated sediments depend on the concentration of P CHs in the sediment. T~-picall~, contaminated sediment is disposed of as a solid waste at a Municipal Solid R'aste (~1ISl~~ landfill that has a liner and a leachate collection system. Disposal costs include testing and laboratory- anahrsis of the sediment to characterize the waste. Other costs include ezca~ration, transportation, and tipping fees. The ~1IPC ~ estimates that for metro communities, disposal costs can be as much as $20,000 per pond when sediment removal projects include significant P_~I contamination and require disposal at a hazardous ~~aste landfill. For ponds with low to non-detect P ~H contamination, the t~rpical costs range from $7,000 to $12,000 per pond and the sediments need to be disposed of at an ~IS~ti' facility. ~lternati~-es to coal tar-based sealer formulations are asphalt-based sealants that ha~-e far lower levels of P CHs. (attachment 1: ~IPC ~ Coal Tar-based Sealcoat En~-ironmental Concerns). asphalt-based sealers are readih a~railable. The ~IPC_~ has compiled a list of home impro~-ement stores which ha~re stopped selling coal tar-based sealant and which cari-~~ asphalt based sealant instead. This list includes stores like SCE Hardware, Home Depot, Lowe's, and ~Ienards. In ~Ia~ 2009, the 1innesota Legislat~ire restricted state agencies from purchasing coal tar sealants (2009 Session La«-s, Chapter 172, and HF1231, sections -4, 26, and 28). The 20091egislation restricts ~llinnesota state agencies from purchasing undiluted coal tar sealant effecti~-e Juhr 1, 2010. In addition, 20 Minnesota rawEnlo ar N:',Public Bodies ~Ctty C~unal'~,Council RCS. agenda Pacbet ~)`-09-30L`.6.3 Coal Tac Sealantdoct ~~~~