Editor's perspective: COVID‐19's impact on the remediation industry

This editor's perspective explores the various global pandemic impacts from COVID‐19 on the environmental remediation and technology industry. As an overview, coronaviruses are RNA viruses enveloped in a lipid bilayer (Beniac, Andonov, Grudeski, & Booth, 2006; Fehr & Perlman, 2015). The virus causing the pandemic is named “SARS‐CoV‐2” and the disease it causes is referred to as “Coronavirus Disease 2019”; however, the virus and disease are commonly called “Coronavirus” and “COVID‐19.”

From an environmental remediation and technology perspective, the pandemic is resulting in reduced regulatory enforcement, delaying a substantial amount of, but not all, remediation field work, warranting precautionary field procedures, generating increased activity for niche services to decontaminate facilities and protect workers, and revealing new environmental technologies to protect workers and the general public through disinfection technologies. The following discussion briefly summarizes each of these topics.

1. REDUCED REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT

On March 26, 2020, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued guidance regarding compliance with various federal environmental laws, regulations, and permit requirements due to the effects of possible disruptions of goods and services (e.g., delays in laboratory services) and human resource limitations (e.g., guidance to reduce travel) due to COVID‐19. The Agency's memorandum specifies that, in general, the USEPA does not expect to seek penalties for violations of routine compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training and reporting, or certification obligations in situations where the USEPA agrees that COVID‐19 was the cause of the noncompliance provided that the regulated entity furnishes supporting documentation to the USEPA upon request (Bodine, 2020).

Many states have developed their own policies or adopted the USEPA's COVID‐19 enforcement policies. Thompson Hine LLP compiled a chart summarizing the individual state environmental policies related to COVID‐19 that can be accessed through the hyperlink provided in the References section (Blatner, Hunt, Lundber, & Kreitner, 2020). States have issued enforcement policies that vary between being more lenient, at least on a case‐by‐case basis, to more stringent than USEPA's. For example, the California Environmental Protection Agency (2020) issued an enforcement policy designed to fill any enforcement gaps resulting from USEPA's policy. On the other hand, at least 10 states (Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and South Dakota) either have not developed a COVID‐specific enforcement policy or announced that they will be continuing with their regular enforcement programs.

2. IS REMEDIATION ESSENTIAL?

The USEPA issued additional guidance, Interim Guidance on Site Field Work Decisions Due to Impacts of COVID‐19, dated April 10, 2020 (Wright & Bodine, 2020). This guidance provides instructions to the USEPA regions to consider when deciding whether to continue site operations or secure a site until the public health threat associated with the pandemic is resolved. This guidance includes the following instructions to the Agency's Regional personnel:

• Ensure that the health and safety of response personnel are protected, with respect to COVID‐19, as they plan for and/or respond to releases or substantial threats of releases.

• Consider the personal safety of responding party personnel as well, including compliance with travel restrictions, health and safety regulations, and access to personal protective equipment and lodging.

• Parties who believe that COVID‐19 restrictions may delay their performance of obligations should consult the applicable enforcement instrument, including provisions allowing for adjustments to schedules to be made at the discretion of USEPA's project manager and/or force majeure provisions.

• Modify a party's performance obligations on a case‐by case basis in accordance with the terms of the applicable enforcement instrument. The formal determination as to whether a particular situation constitutes force majeure or requires additional response depends on the site‐specific circumstances, particularly the type of work that is affected by COVID‐19. Responsible parties can make requests to the Agency for relief from regulatory obligations.

As of the beginning of April, USEPA reduced or paused on‐site construction work at ∼34 USEPA or PRP‐lead Superfund National Priority List sites (USEPA, 2020).

Similarly, many states have issued guidance with respect to whether or not to postpone investigation and remediation efforts at hazardous sites. The Thompson Hine state‐by‐state enforcement table provided in the References section includes summaries and links to the states’ guidance.

3. INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION PRECAUTIONS DURING THE PANDEMIC

During the COVID‐19 pandemic, environmental consultants and contractors and state regulatory agencies have developed plans and guidance to follow when implementing field work. For example, the State of New Jersey issued an executive order specifying the following precautions to take during construction activities deemed essential (Murphy, 2020):

• Reduced on‐site staff to only essential workers. Nonessential workers cannot be on‐site.

• A limit of 10 people at worksite meetings, inductions, and workgroups.

• Social distancing (6 ft) whenever possible.

• Staggered work start and stop times to limit crowds at the beginning and end of shifts.

• Staggered lunch breaks and work times to utilize the least number of people possible for operations to continue safely.

• A limit on how many people can use common areas, like bathrooms and breakrooms, at one time.

• Workers must wear face masks and gloves on the premises, except if they cannot wear a face mask for a medical reason. The employer must provide (at their own expense) face masks and gloves to their workers.

• Visitors must wear a mask on the premises, unless they have a medical reason. If a visitor refuses for a nonmedical reason, the visitor may not enter the site.

• Infection control practices: regular hand washing, coughing, and sneezing etiquette.

• Limited sharing tools, equipment, and machinery.

• Providing hand sanitizers and sanitizing wipes to employees and visitors.

• Requiring frequent sanitization of high‐touch areas, including restrooms, breakrooms, equipment, and machinery.

• Implementing cleaning and sanitation practices in accordance with Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidance. The CDC recommends routine use of household cleaners, sanitizers or a diluted bleach solution on all frequently touched surfaces.

These precautions are directly applicable to investigation and remediation field work. The consultants and contractors I have spoken with indicated that their firms developed corporate policies and site‐specific alterations to health and safety plans. These alterations incorporate precautionary measures to mitigate the risks of spreading COVID‐19. These plans typically contain many of the elements of the New Jersey precautions.

I also have discussed with several consultants about returning to the office environment and most indicated that their companies plan to keep office work to a minimum (or none at all) until COVID‐19 cases are minimal. Office environments often have open floor plans that inhibit the ability to social distance. While there are ways to minimize contact by controlling the direction of foot traffic, scheduling lunch and other break times to minimize the number of people in a break room (or requiring lunch to be eaten at one's desk), limiting the number of people attending in‐person meetings, and staggering office attendance with at home work schedules, many believe the risks of working at an office outweigh the benefits.

4. DISINFECTING BUILDINGS: NEW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

As much as we dislike the fact that the Coronavirus is disrupting the economy, there is a niche service offered by the remediation industry as a result of COVID‐19. Clean Harbors, US Ecology, Heritage, and many other emergency response contractors provide COVID‐19 decontamination services. These services typically involve 40‐hr HAZWOPER trained hazardous site response specialists entering a facility in Level C protective equipment (respirators, coated suits, and gloves) to wipe down surfaces and, if warranted, fog or mist equipment. The workers treat the area undergoing decontamination as an exclusion zone and enter and exit through a decontamination station for their own protection. This service has been provided to hospitals, nursing homes, and offices—particularly in instances where a COVID‐19 outbreak has occurred.

5. USING UV LIGHT TO INHIBIT THE SPREAD OF CORONAVIRUS

Lipid viruses are the least resistant microorganisms on the scale of descending order of resistance to germicidal chemicals. Because sterilization processes render devices free from viable microorganisms including bacterial spores, and because disinfection kills most recognized pathogenic microorganisms, it can generally be inferred that sterilization and disinfection should minimize the viability of SARS‐CoV‐2 (this virus is one of the least resistant microorganisms) on surfaces and in the air in confined spaces. Moreover, air purifiers can filter virus‐sized particles from air while, in some cases, also utilizing UV light to render the virus inactive (US Food & Drug Administration, 2020). However, these air purification devices are designed to be used in small spaces, such as operating rooms, and are not applicable to entire buildings.

Researchers at Columbia University have developed and studied a novel application of UV light that may be applicable to large areas. This innovative technology employs lamps producing a wavelength of light, known as far‐UVC, to kill viruses and bacteria. The short wavelength light that far‐UVC lamps produce kills viruses floating in the air or even living on surfaces without posing a risk to human cells. The researchers exposed two coronavirus species, similar to but less hazardous than SARS‐CoV‐2, to far‐UVC in an irradiation chamber and measured the disinfection rate. The far‐UVC effectively disinfected both coronavirus species. The researchers believe that this technology may be applicable to large scale building applications to reduce the concentration of SARS‐CoV‐2 using UV light intensities safe to humans. While the economics are not yet fully examined, this is a promising technology that may be applicable in areas of heavy traffic, higher risk public spaces such as airports, hospitals, and grocery stores to prevent the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2, in addition to other viruses and bacteria.

In a similar project, Columbia University scientists are conducting a pilot program with the New York City Metro Transit Authority that involves using far‐UVC lights to sanitize buses and subway cars after they are vacated. These lights are more intense than those under consideration for constant use in occupied buildings; hence, why the subway cars must be vacant.

6. OTHER BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

Many consulting firms have technical capabilities that enable them to assist clients manage and control COVID‐19 risks. These COVID‐19‐related services include, but are not limited to, preparing decontamination plans, developing contingency and facility operational plans, designing office and manufacturing layouts to enhance social distancing and using Global Positioning System and Geographical Information System to manage COVID‐19 data. One firm even mentioned to me that they are utilizing drones to conduct remote surface water sampling to minimize the potential for interpersonal contact.

7. CONCLUSION

The SARS‐CoV‐2 virus and COVID‐19 pandemic is causing unprecedented impacts on society and the global economy and it is no surprise that this pandemic is affecting the remediation and environmental technology sector. A looming question is whether responsible parties will pursue discretionary remediation and other environmental programs as a result of the worldwide economic impacts. Several corporate remediation managers informed me that they have either taken steps to reduce discretionary environmental expenditures or are considering doing so. In addition, the financial impact on the real estate sector is likely to slow brownfields redevelopment projects. The delays in environmental expenditures are stressing the environmental consulting and contracting markets and several companies have implemented lay‐offs and/or salary reductions. The length of this economic downturn and when regulators will revive delayed enforcement activities will predicate the extent of these impacts.

Remediation will continue tracking the COVID‐19 developments, including publishing articles on how COVID‐19 is impacting the remediation and environmental technology sectors.

Biography

John A. Simon is the editor‐in‐chief of Remediation. He is also a Senior Vice President at Nathan Associates (Arlington, Virginia), a consulting firm specializing in providing advisory services for environmental, economic, and international matters.