Unless you can see documentation that the samples were in fact clean or some confirmation from the regulatory, the EP cannot definitively rule out that it is a REC. This seems like a "data gap" flag.

With respect to ACM, it is true that ACM is non-scope and even when added to the SOW, it cannot be a identified REC but simply an additional environmental concern.

As an example, I had a transaction where ACM was included in the scope of a phase 1 done for a sale of a bakery. The consultant said there was no ACM based on the abatement that had "reportedly" performed. As it turned out, no abatement had ever been done.

After the client purchased the site, it discovered asbestos dust in its cake mix from peeling asbestos piping insulation that had been hidden behind a drop ceiling. All kidding aside about the presence of asbestos dust adding a nice "crunchy" bite or preventing customers from burning the pies in the oven, the client incurred a $2MM abatement and sued the consultant.

As a side note, it turned out, the main issue at the facility had been wastewater treatment plant malfunctioning so the consultant sent a water treatment specialist who did not know much about asbestos. He wrote the report and somehow it got past the quality review. Later when the case was ready to proceed to trial, the person who had done the inspection and written the report had unfortunately passed away and the former employee of the seller who had "mis-remembered" about the asbestos abatement could not be found. This made it hard for the consultant to defend itself and the matter was settled.....

Writing a technical report is like writing features for magazines...no good editor will let a writer get away with generalizations.

Studies show...what studies?

Experts agree...which experts?

Polls show...which polls?

Clarity is key here. Your writing will improve if you back it up with facts and skip the generalizations. Expert writers agree.