By the way, I aimed for irony with that title.

Recently, the Plans and Policies Committee held a meeting in which the topic was a letter from the Environmental Advisory Committee which requested that coal-tar sealing systems be banned in the city of Springfield.  These systems are used to seal and protect parking lots built and maintained by private companies.  You will see these parking lots at all shopping malls and strip centers, most medical centers, and anywhere else where numbers of vehicles congregate and park.

A city staff member made a 20-minute presentation about the issue and then the committee chair opened the meeting up for discussion.  The paving companies had brought in a geo-chemical Ph.D. from an Arlington, VA industry group to speak and to present their position.  In addition, most of the paving and sealing companies provided letters outlining their positions.  A representative of the Environmental Advisory Board also read a report to the Committee.

It was at this point that the Committee meeting took a fairly ugly turn.  There was a give-and-take about the results of studies and the representative of the Environmental Advisory Board made several pointed and, quite frankly, rude and sarcastic comments to and about the industry representative.

Regardless of one’s beliefs and positions on an issue, there is no place—especially at a City Council committee meeting—for rude behavior.  Just because someone believes differently, that is no reason for sarcasm or snotty comments.  The representative of the EAB did not do his organization any favors by his behavior.

Now, back to the content of the presentations.  The EAB made the assertions that the coal tar-based sealants also contained an ingredient called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.  The further assertion is that these PAHs are possibly carcinogenic and should be banned.

Several committee members had questions for various presenters.  I asked a couple of questions and did not feel that I received satisfactory answers.  One was simply about the assertion that, because of transportation costs, most states west of the Rocky Mountains do not use coal tar-based sealants.  My question was about the difference in cancer rates in California and in Missouri.  It just seemed logical that, if these PAHs were so dangerous, we should see a significant discrepancy in the cancer rates between a state that doesn’t use these sealants and one that does.  However, the representatives didn’t have that data.

Yesterday, I sent a list of questions to a member of the EAB in order to get more answers before this issue comes before Council.  The questions will also be forwarded to the industry rep in Virginia.  I will post those questions here today and, when I receive the answers, I will post those as well.   My questions:

Questions for Coal-Tar meeting

1.     There was a statement that some macroinverebrates showed evidence of genetic damage in both Pearson and Wilson Creeks.  Can this damage be directly linked to PAHs or is there some other cause that might be contributing to the genetic damage? (I know that Wilson Creek has suffered some chemical and sewage spills over the years.)

2.     Given that PAHs are found in the sediment of local streams, can we directly link those PAHs to parking lots versus diesel-powered vehicles versus construction burn piles, etc?

3.     If there is a request for the banning of coal tar sealants, would it not also be necessary to ban cigarettes, wood-burning fireplaces, fireplace inserts, and pellet stoves as well in order to protect us from PAHs?

4.     If coal-tar sealants are used only east of the Rocky Mountains and not west because of transportation costs, one could expect a lower rate of cancer in those western states.  Would you provide a per capita comparison of cancer rates between, say, Missouri and Kansas versus California and Nevada?

5.     If snow plowing is contributing to the breakdown of sealants on parking lots, should we ban snow plowing?  What would this do to pedestrian safety, the incidence of slips and falls on those surfaces, and what impact would that have on the business’ liability insurance rates?

6.     If an ordinance authorizing this ban were put in place in Springfield, how many jobs would be lost by the companies who manufacture the product and those who install it?

This is an important topic and a discussion that needs to occur.  Therefore, let’s put aside our snippy remarks and our partisan biases and take a look at the issues involved and make a rational and balanced decision.