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/ 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.