Topic

    tpond
    hydraulic lift on property
    Topic posted June 4, 2010 by tpondMember, last edited January 19, 2012
    2339 Views, 19 Comments
    Title:
    hydraulic lift on property
    Content:

    I am buying a half acre parcel. The owner had an in-ground hydraulic auto lift installed on the property that he removed while I was in contract.  THis work was done without permits or inspections and I was never informed of the lift.  I happened to drive by and see the  the equipment being loaded onto a trailer with an excavator.  I later leanred trough a mutual aquaintence that the lift was aquired from a defunct auto repair shop, installed and used on the on the property to work on his many vehicles.  What environmental and legal issues might this present?

    Comment

    • Matt Fox
      posted June 5, 2010 by Matt FoxElite Contributor

      Not enough information to draw any good conclusions. Hydraulic lifts aren't typically a huge problem, but they can definitely cause contamination if they've leaked.  I'd probably be more worried about other stuff.  Auto repair activity is frequently source of contamination and often a good indicator that the property may have been a gasoline station many years ago. Could easily be old underground gasoline tanks, waste oil tanks, hazardous waste dumped onto ground or into septic systems, etc, etc, etc.

      I'm guessing you didn't get a Phase 1 done.  Probably would be a good idea to get one if you don't want to be responsible for contamination caused by the previous owner.  You can probably get a Phase 1 done for somewhere around $1,800-$2,500, depending on timing, etc.  If you've already closed escrow and taken possession of the property, then you're options are much more limited and would probably need to start looking for a good lawyer.

      Looks like you're in SF Bay Area.  We have people in that area.  If you want to get a Phase 1, give me a call at 916.273.8525

      Matt Fox

    • Mike M
      posted June 7, 2010 by Mike MContributor

      Good comments by Matt. Usually even if there is a release from hydraulic units, contamination is very localized. Just a matter of digging out a bit of extra soil, and not very expensive. Undocumented activities like lift removal can cause problems for future loans, due to the "unknown" factor. Some lenders have very low risk tolerance, even for minor issues.

      Like Matt says, the fact that there was a lift should be a flag that there could be other issues with this site.

    • Brian Olin, PG
      posted June 10, 2010 by Brian Olin, PGContributor

      I agree with both Matt and Mike.  The fact that he did this secretly and tried to conceal it should also raise some red flags that there might be other issues.  I agree that a Phase I ESA is in order.  This is good practice for any commercial real estate parcel, and banks require a Phase I before financing any commercial property for just these reasons.

      http://sites.google.com/site/brianolinnc/ 

       

    • AEN Property Services
      posted November 30, 2010 by AEN Property ServicesMember

       

      Unless this removal was written in the contract, the owner had no right to remove anything attached to the property.

       

    • jessedphillips
      posted November 30, 2010 by jessedphillipsElite Contributor
      Did they backfill already? If not, you could go get some soil samples from the pit(s) and determine whether contamination is present. If it is backfilled, it wouldn't hurt to put a boring in the former basin to see what comes back.
    • NeilChandler
      posted December 1, 2010 by NeilChandlerMember

      I have been involved with the removal of hundreds of in-ground lift removals in the past 15 years.  They do leak, probably 50% of the time, especially if the reservoir is located in-ground.  As suggested above though, hydraulic oil typically doesn't travel far and is pretty easy to excavate....unless there is groundwater impact, obviously.  The client I represent will always want at least one boring within two feet of the excavation and a groundwater sample for single post and two or three borings for dual post or vaulted fore and aft lifts.  If it is not too late, especially since he did this so "covertly" I would make him pay for soil and groundwater sampling, just to give you piece of mind. 

    • T Ripley
      posted December 1, 2010 by T RipleyMember

      We have had several projects in which hydraulic lifts with in-ground cylinders/tanks have released significant volumes of oil.  These lifts were in place for many years and had a chance to corrode, so maybe this doesn't apply to your site. We've encountered multiple feet of free-phase oil on the water table from leaking seals/cylinders/tanks.  Don't be too quick to write off lifts with in-ground components; we typically view them as no different that any UST.

      • Joseph Burley, Freelance Enviro-Tech
        posted December 6, 2010 by Joseph Burley, Freelance Enviro-TechSuper Contributor

        The few lifts I have dealt with weren't that bad also. While not relevant to the original question--this reminded me of an anecdote. I worked with people who told me they were remediating an auto dealership and found lots of oil around the pits (including a thick layer of free product) --but it was motor oil not hydraulic oil. It was thought that back in the day it was convenient for a mechanic to dump waste oil and solvents back into the pit of this certain type of hoist. Wondering if this was a rare exception or if other consultants have encountered this.

    • DougCanavelloPG
      posted December 1, 2010 by DougCanavelloPGMember

      I would test any soil samples you get for PCB's. They were frequently used as an additive to hydraulic fluid.

    • Mike Willinger
      posted December 1, 2010 by Mike WillingerMember
      I don't mean to be overly critical, but the original poster doesn't appear to have done ANY due diligence. How do you buy a property and not know it had a hydraulic lift? (To me, a hydraulic lift would definitely be a selling point.) Did he look inside the buildings on the property? Why are you relying on information from a "mutual acquintance"? But, in answer to the question, as Matt said, there isn't enough info to draw a good conclusion. For this reason, jumping to conclusions might not be the most productive thing to do. Just from the limited information provided, there are replies that range from the whether the previous owner had the legal right to remove equipment from the site, to what the past uses of the site probably were. We don't know that the owner was "covertly" removing the lift. The guy saw that activity as he was driving by the site. It's kind of hard to hide something as big as an excavator. Besides, hydraulic lifts aren't necessarily an indication that the site was a gasoline station - my brother has two floor-mounted hydraulic lifts (that came from defunct auto service shops) in his personal garage, and there isn't a gasoline station within five miles of his house. I think the original poster's first order of business is a discussion with the owner of the property. Ask about the lift, past uses the property, and whatever other questions you can think of. The answers to those questions will help you reach reach reasonable conclusions about the environmental and legal issues your purchase might present.
    • LSchnapf
      posted December 1, 2010 by LSchnapfElite Contributor

      depending on the age of the lifts, the hydraulic fluids could have contained PCBs. If the lifts had concrete base, the PCBs could migrate into the subsurface. Seems to me without more info, you might want to do some sampling...

    • Emily B
      posted December 1, 2010 by Emily BContributor

      Pre-purchase due diligence and legal rights to remove the lift secretly/publicly aside, what we have is a property that until recently contained an in-ground hydraulic lift.  I have directed the removal of hydraulic lifts, and I've seen one in perfect condition 30 feet from one that was leaking - both lifts being the same age.  So, to be sure that the new owner isn't dealing with contamination from a previous owner, it's worth a look underground to make sure that a) there is no/minimal residual hydraulic fluid, and b) the fill that was used, presuming it's been filled in, was actually clean and not "free fill dirt". 

      The additional issues (motor oil, gasoline, antifreeze) MattFox mentioned come into play because where there's a lift, there are usually other maintenance chemicals.  If there was only one lift, the setup is less likely to be what you'd see at a large oil change shop or maintenance garage, typically a drum or tank that is handled by a disposal company.  For a person who just likes to work on cars, putting that oil down a floor drain, sink, or out the back door is easier and cheaper than proper disposal, and even bigger places weren't giving that a second thought decades ago.  Depending on when it was used and how, hydraulic oil may be the only concern, but it's tough to rule out the rest.

    • MaxEng
      posted December 2, 2010 by MaxEngElite Contributor

      Emily makes a couple of excellent points here.  But they raise other questions: if you determine that a site contains fill dirt from an undocumented source, is that a REC?  If so, what do you recommend doing about it?  Do you require an analytical report on every fill dirt source in order to say that it is not a REC?

      • jessedphillips
        posted December 2, 2010 by jessedphillipsElite Contributor

        I see you are playing devil's advocate again.  Of course fill dirt from an undocumented source does not qualify as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property." 

        If it does, then any undocumented activity would qualify as such too.  And undocumented simply means "I don't know, but maybe," meaning any property could have been the subject of any activity, making every site a de facto REC.  I think that in this case, the burden of proof is on the likelihood of contaminated soil being used. 

    • MaxEng
      posted December 2, 2010 by MaxEngElite Contributor

      Oddly enough, I was not being a devil's advocate (though given my posting history that's a reasonable assumption!). Rather, I've seen fill dirt treated in a variety of ways by users of Phase I reports, with some (especially government funding agencies) seeming to regard all fill as a REC, and others taking a more reasonable interpretation such as Jesse's. I'd be interested in seeing other EPs' opinions on fill dirt.

      Obviously, fill dirt that looks a lot like foundry sand is going to be handled differently from fill that looks like topsoil. And in my experience, urban soils typically exceed Ohio's risk-based standards because of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) resulting from airborne deposition of coal combustion products and other coal-related activities. This represents, in my opinion, a bit of a gray area in the REC definition; if contamination is ubiquitous, is the presence of the contamination a REC? Would use of urban-sourced soil in a suburban development (only recently developed) possibly constitute a REC? I don't see a bright line, personally, but I'd welcome further discussion.

    • LSchnapf
      posted December 2, 2010 by LSchnapfElite Contributor

      Fill material is one of the great under-regulated areas. we've had some notorious sites in the NYC area where PCB-contaminated concrete from demolition was used as aggregate for a dozen or so residential developments, necessitating the shutdown of construction and remedial activities at those sites. Ive also seen sites where client spends millions of $$ to remediate site only to re-contaminate with unclean fill.

       

       

    • Mike M
      posted February 11, 2011 by Mike MContributor

      Back to the original topic of in-ground lifts....

      I frequently see in-ground lifts that are no longer in use. A site I was at recently was converted from auto repair to an antique shop. The owner removed the surface components of  a lift and put some antique iron decorative thing over the remaining in-ground shaft (see photo).

      There are no federal or state regulations requiring the removal of lifts, even if they are no longer in use (some municipalities may require their removal). Further, hydraulic fluids are a huge class of compounds, including mineral oils, organophosphate esters, and polyalphaolefins. So, there is no MCLs, cleanup standards, etc.

      I had a site about a year ago where I recommended removal of an inactive lift, and included in my report that it was likely that localized contamination could be present, but that the soil could be over-excavated at the time of lift removal. In general, the various types of hydraulic fluids are not mobile in soil, and I knew the geology of the area (low permeability soils/clays). 

      Instead of following my recommendation, the owner had a company come and pull out the lift shaft. They then had another company come and take one soil sample from the base of the shaft hole. They then had a third company fill the shaft hole with cement. Then, a month later, the client came back to me complaining that the soil sample had something like 50,000 ppm of TPH (I forget the exact lab results).

      So, they found exactly what I told them they would likely find....  contamination at the base of the shaft. My point was (and is), are we talking about a small area of maybe a cubic foot of contaminated soil? Who knows? If they had just dug up some soil at the base of the shaft and then sampled, and had not filled the shaft hole with 8 feet of cement, it would have been much easier to address.   

      As an analogy, if I see a drip of oil in a parking lot, I am certainly not going to call it a REC. But if some consultant samples that drip and then writes a report sating "Oh my gosh! One million ppm TPH was detected and that guy didn't call it a REC?" and the client complains to me that I missed the "contamination"... well... that's the sort of stuff we have to deal with.

      Since it's not required that inactive lifts be removed, and there are no cleanup standards, how do you guys handle out-of-use in-ground lifts in your recommendations? The experience described above has me more "'gun-shy" of old lifts than I used to be. But, I still believe that the VAST majority of old lifts would represent a de minimus condition per  ASTM 1527-05 (i.e. below that requiring regulatory agency enforcement action).  It is very rare that I see more than a couple of cubic yards of contaminated soil associated with lifts.

      DSCN8911.JPG (233KB)
      • Emily B
        posted February 11, 2011 by Emily BContributor

        Wow, that definitely is a decorative way to cover an unsightly lift!

        I would call any lift that is in-ground a REC, unless I had good data (from a Phase II with borings near the reservoir) indicating otherwise.  My clients who have automotive repair facilities have consistently seen them as a REC that warrants a Phase II.

        Of course, you have to factor in your client's comfort with the level of risk that's represented by a few yards of impacted soil, and where the water table is.  In my case, my clients have been large corporations with an understandably conservative approach.

    • LSchnapf
      posted February 11, 2011 by LSchnapfElite Contributor

      If the lift had purely hydraulic oil and no PCBs, then I agree it was probably de minimis depending on condition of the pit. However, if the lifts had PCB-contaminated hydraulic oil, then all bets are off. So, I usually require sampling for PCBs. Also seen this problem with hydraulic elevators where pits are cracked and heavily stained. Sometimes they have had PCBs which as you know can migrate through concrete. The drip, drip, drip of PCB-contaminated oil in from a compressor in a building has been found to be a CERCLA threatened release because of its ability to get into the environment thru the concrete.