House committee advances Steele bill to ban coal-tar driveway sealants

Representative Steele introduced House Bill 1089, saying the measure would “prohibit the supply, sale or application of coal tar based ... sealants on driveways and parking lots.” The bill would ban coal-tar-based sealants in the Commonwealth and direct regulators to treat products with high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) differently from asphalt-based alternatives.

Supporters said coal-tar sealants are a public-health risk. “Coal tar sealants contain large amounts of a class of chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs,” Steele said. She said PAHs can become airborne, be tracked into homes on shoes and “significantly rais[e] your risk of cancer.” Steele noted that municipalities and several states have already banned coal-tar sealants and told the committee that asphalt-based alternatives “have the same efficacy, the same look, and they cost the same amount of money.”

Committee staff provided a short analysis: the bill would “prohibit the supply, sale or application of high PAH sealants in the Commonwealth.” Members then questioned the science and regulatory context.

Chair Raider expressed opposition and raised federal regulatory points, saying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has long approved coal-tar ingredients for some topical medicines and shampoos and that the Environmental Protection Agency has not classified coal-tar sealer as hazardous material. “If they’re the primary source and we don’t seem to have any issues—FDA, EPA—on how safe they are, it would seem like we’d have to ban all vehicles,” Raider said, arguing vehicle emissions are a leading urban source of PAHs.

The committee voted to report House Bill 1089 as committed. The recorded tally was a majority in favor; the committee record shows multiple members voting yes and several no. The committee also heard that stakeholders and municipalities in Pennsylvania have already adopted local prohibitions.

Why it matters: Steele and other supporters framed the bill as a public-health measure aimed at reducing PAH exposure from common resurfacing products. Opponents cited federal approvals and questioned whether the state should intercede where federal agencies have not moved to ban the materials.

The bill will move forward as a committee-reported measure for further legislative consideration.