General Project Summaries

---

A Client located in Okotoks, Alberta, tasked Bifröst with the completion of a Phase 1 ESA.  The purpose of the Phase 1 ESA was to provide for their own future planning, should any actual or potential contamination be found during the ESA.

After a thorough review of historical documents and records, a site inspection, a review of regulatory records, and the completion of interviews with various knowledgeable persons, Bifröst was able to determine that no actual contamination was found at the property.  

However, several areas of potential contamination related to off-site properties was in evidence.  

Additionally, due to the age of the building, the Client was made aware that a future potential buyer may request certain inspections be completed to guarantee that the existing building materials do not contain prohibited constituents.  

The Client is now able to plan for potential issues that may come up during the future sale of the property.

After review of another consultant's prior  reports, it was clear that the consultant had failed to define the location of a underground storage tank (UST) on a property in Calgary, Alberta.  Bifröst recommended to the Client that both a ground penetrating radar survey and an electromagnetic survey be completed, to determine the UST location.

Upon completion of the geophysical surveys, Bifröst was able to determine with certainty that the UST was no longer present at the site, and to determine the exact location of the former UST vault, so that future samples could be collected.

The geophysical surveys saved the Client at least $25,000, in that further random soil borings, groundwater monitoring wells, and analytical testing did not need to be completed in a random search for the potential source area.  

A Client located in Calgary, Alberta, tasked Bifröst with the review of another consultant's report and conclusions, as the Client did not feel that the consultant was providing viable options.  

Upon review of the site reports and recommendations, Bifröst was able to provide the Client with an alternative course of action that met AEP requirements and which saved the Client over $100,000.  The proposed, new actions did not compromise human health or the environment to achieve the previously mentioned benefits. 

A Client located in Regina, Saskatchewan, tasked Bifröst with the review of another consultant's report and conclusions.  The consultant was working for the seller of a property, while Bifröst was contracted to the potential buyer.  The Client did not feel that the seller's consultant was providing reasonable conclusions in their Phase I ESA report.    

Upon review of the site reports and recommendations, Bifröst was able to provide the Client with a list of actual and potential areas of contamination, both on and off site, that had either not been identified by the other consultant, or had been written off as not an issue.   

The review prior to entering a purchase contract saved the Client several hundreds of thousands of dollars in remediation and investigation costs, by placing the onus back onto the seller, in this case.  

A Client located in Calgary, Alberta, tasked Bifröst with the oversight of field activities to be completed by another consultant.  After a thorough review of previous reports and the proposed Phase 2 ESA plan of the other consultant, Bifröst was able to recommend to the Client that the Phase 2 ESA plan be modified to substantially reduce the number of additional planned boreholes and monitoring wells originally suggested, as they were unnecessary in determining the full nature and extent of the contamination.  

Additionally, the original consultant was not analyzing the soil and groundwater samples for the full suite of potential contaminants associated with a release of gasoline or diesel fuel.  Bifröst made suggestions to the sampling scheme that covered the full potential range of constituents of concern. 

A Client located in Calgary, Alberta, requested that Bifröst review the final completion of a risk management plan (RMP) that had been completed by another consultant.  

After a thorough review of previous reports and the proposed RMP of the other consultant, Bifröst provided recommendations to the Client that substantially enhanced both the background, substance, and proposed actions of the RMP document.  These additions filled data gaps in the document that would likely have lead to at least one round of comments and revisions from Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP).