The Opinions section of a Phase I report

The Opinions section says what each finding means for the subject property, and why. The standard requires the environmental professional's opinion and rationale on what the Findings identify, says what the reasoning on a controlled recognized environmental condition and the comment on a significant data gap shall hold, and asks for an opinion on additional investigation.

What the standard requires

An opinion and its rationale. The environmental professional's opinion or opinions shall be in the report, with the supporting rationale, on how what the Findings identify is likely to affect the subject property. The logic and reasoning the professional used shall be discussed (E1527-21, 12.6).
Each class the finding pertains to. The opinions shall include the rationale for concluding that a finding does or does not fall in each class it pertains to: recognized environmental condition (REC), controlled REC (CREC), historical REC (HREC) or de minimis condition (E1527-21, 12.6).
A CREC. The reasoning shall discuss how the REC was addressed to the regulatory authority's satisfaction, and shall identify what the CREC finding rests on, whether an activity and use limitation or another property use limitation (E1527-21, 12.6.1). The professional shall also identify the documentation that provides the control. Calling a release a CREC does not vouch for the control's adequacy, implementation or continued effectiveness (E1527-21, 3.2.17.1).
An HREC. The rationale shall be in the Findings and Opinions, and the professional shall review the reasonably ascertainable documentation and data that show unrestricted use criteria were met (E1527-21, 3.2.39.1).
A significant data gap. The professional shall comment in the Opinion section on how the missing information affects the ability to give an opinion on whether the inquiry found signs of a release or threatened release at the subject property, and should discuss whether more information would likely help decide if a REC or CREC exists (E1527-21, 12.6.2).
Additional investigation. The professional should give an opinion on additional appropriate investigation, if any, to detect hazardous substances or petroleum products. Giving one does not make the assessment incomplete, and it is not meant as a requirement to include recommendations (E1527-21, 12.8).
Grounds stated in the report. Likely is what a reasonable observer would expect or believe on the professional's logic or experience, or on available evidence, as the report states them in support of its opinions (E1527-21, 3.2.73.1).
One section or two. The professional may choose to put findings and opinions in one combined section (E1527-21, 12.6).

What the federal rule says

The rule lists what its written report holds at the least. First on the list:

An opinion as to whether the inquiry has identified conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances

40 CFR 312.21(c)(1)

And on further work:

The inquiry of the environmental professional should include an opinion regarding additional appropriate investigation, if any.

40 CFR 312.31(b)

How it is written

Every finding is covered by an opinion. The opinion names the class the professional judges applies, gives the evidence and the reasoning, and says why the finding does or does not fall in each other class it pertains to (E1527-21, 12.6). For a CREC it adds how the release was addressed, the limitation relied on and the documentation that provides the control (E1527-21, 12.6.1, 3.2.17.1).

The standard requires two more judgments in the report: the significance of a listing to the analysis, and the sufficiency of what a file or record review obtained (E1527-21, 8.1.10, 8.2.3.2). Those two sections do not say where in the report the judgments go.

The opinion on additional investigation says whether more investigation may be appropriate. A note in the standard sets that apart from a recommendation, which sets out a particular course of action and lies outside the practice's scope (E1527-21, 12.8, Note 6). The Conclusions then list the RECs, the CRECs and the significant data gaps (E1527-21, 12.7).

Example, with the facts in brackets:

Opinion on [the finding]: the environmental professional judges it to be [the class the professional judges applies]. Grounds: [the evidence observed, recorded or reported], [the logic or experience applied], and [why each other class it could pertain to does not apply]. Supporting documentation: [the appendix or reference].

Example, with the facts in brackets:

Significant data gap, [the missing information]. Effect on the opinion: [how its absence affects the environmental professional's ability to say whether the inquiry found signs of a release or threatened release at the subject property]. Whether more information would likely help: [yes or no, and from what source]. Opinion on additional investigation: [the opinion, or that none is appropriate].

What a reviewer checks

Is every finding covered by an opinion with its supporting rationale (E1527-21, 12.6)?
Is the logic and reasoning discussed, and not only a class named (E1527-21, 12.6)?
For each class a finding pertains to, does the opinion say why the finding does or does not fall in it (E1527-21, 12.6)?
For a CREC, does the reasoning discuss how the release was addressed to the regulatory authority's satisfaction, and identify the limitation relied on and the documentation that provides the control (E1527-21, 12.6.1, 3.2.17.1)?
For an HREC, do the Findings and Opinions give the rationale for calling it one (E1527-21, 3.2.39.1)?
For each significant data gap, does the Opinion section say how the missing information affects the ability to give an opinion (E1527-21, 12.6.2)?
Is there an opinion on additional appropriate investigation, if any (E1527-21, 12.8)?

This page is general reference for environmental professionals. It does not classify any property. ASTM E1527-21 is the standard and is not reproduced here; the judgment of the environmental professional on the facts governs.