Sign-Off on a Borrowed Report
You are a REAC asked to review and sign a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for a client's lender. The report was written by a junior geologist who has left the firm. The project manager, who is not a REAC, wants your signature as 'reviewer' by Friday. You have not seen the raw laboratory data. In the report, lead in one residential soil sample is 420 mg/kg; the state residential screening level is 400 mg/kg, but the table compares it to an industrial standard of 1,000 mg/kg and calls it 'below criteria.' The chain-of-custody shows the cooler temperature was not recorded. The client's attorney says, 'The lender only needs a signature; don't reopen the sampling.' You are the only REAC in the office.
1. What are your ethical and professional obligations before signing the report? Address the lead comparison, the missing cooler temperature, and the fact that you have not reviewed the raw data.
Read the worked answer
I cannot sign the report as written. A reviewer's signature represents that I have reviewed the work and that it is technically sound, not merely that a report exists. The lead result of 420 mg/kg exceeds the state residential screening level of 400 mg/kg. Comparing it to an industrial standard of 1,000 mg/kg is misleading for a residential property and changes the conclusion from an exceedance to 'below criteria.' That is a material misstatement. The missing cooler temperature is a data-quality gap; I need to know whether the samples were chilled and whether the holding time was met before I can rely on the lead result or any other analyte. I have not seen the raw laboratory data, chain-of-custody, or QC summaries, so I cannot verify the tables. My obligation is to the public, the client, and the profession, not only to the lender's schedule. I would tell the project manager and the attorney that I will review the raw data, correct the comparison, and document the data gap before any signature.
2. How would you handle the client's pressure and the project manager's request, and what would you put in the report?
Read the worked answer
I would respond in writing that a signature without review would be a false or misleading professional certification. I would ask the project manager for the raw data package, the laboratory QC, the chain-of-custody, and the field records. If the cooler temperature was not recorded, the report should state that condition and qualify the affected data unless the laboratory can show the samples were received within temperature and holding-time requirements. The lead comparison should be corrected to the residential screening level and the result should be identified as an exceedance. If the data are insufficient to determine whether the exceedance is real, the report should recommend resampling rather than characterize the result as below criteria. I would not sign until those corrections are made and I have documented my review. If the firm insists on issuing the report without correction, I would decline to be the reviewer and would escalate the matter through the firm's quality-assurance process. The attorney's statement that the lender 'only needs a signature' does not change the professional obligation.
3. What are the consequences of signing as requested, and what documentation would you create to protect the record?
Read the worked answer
Signing as requested would certify a report that misapplies a screening level, omits a known data gap, and has not been independently reviewed. That could expose me and the firm to professional discipline, civil liability for negligent misrepresentation, and loss of credibility with the lender and regulator. If the property is later found contaminated, the report could be used to show that the consultant knew or should have known about the lead exceedance. I would create a written record: an email to the project manager and attorney stating that I cannot sign without the raw data and corrections; a review memo listing the specific deficiencies; a corrected table with the residential comparison; and a data-gap section for the missing cooler temperature. I would retain the original report and my comments in the project file. If the client refuses correction, I would document that refusal and decline the assignment. Protecting the record is not disloyalty to the client; it is the basis for a defensible report and for my own professional standing.