Checklist template

Fuel inventory variance investigation

A ready-to-use checklist with 103 items in 6 sections, covering Variance trends, Meter calibration, Leak indicators, Delivery shortages, Theft indicators, Escalation. Use it as-is in Bindy, or adapt it to your own standards in minutes.

  • 6 Sections
  • 103 Items
  • 80 Yes / No checks
  • 5 Scored ratings
  • 105 Points

Use this template How audits work

1. Variance trends 20 items

  1. Tank number and grade under investigation Short text
  2. Cumulative variance of that tank over the last 30 days (gallons or liters, negative for a loss) Number
  3. Cumulative variance as a percentage of the volume sold (%) Number
  4. Daily variances for the last 30 days were reviewed one day at a time, not only as a monthly total Yes / No 1 pt
  5. Pattern of the variance Choice
    • Gains and losses that cancel out
    • Steady loss every day
    • Loss on delivery days
    • Loss on particular days or shifts
  6. The variance of every other grade was reviewed to see whether one tank or the whole site is affected Yes / No 1 pt
  7. A gain in another grade on the same day was looked for, which would point to a delivery dropped into the wrong tank Yes / No 1 pt
  8. The mid-grade sales of the period were recalculated between the two source tanks with the blend ratio measured at the dispenser Yes / No 1 pt
  9. The variances of tanks joined by a siphon line were added together before concluding that one tank is losing Yes / No 1 pt
  10. The tank chart loaded in the tank gauge matches the capacity on the tank's installation record Yes / No 1 pt
  11. The tank diameter set in the tank gauge matches the tank's installation record Yes / No 1 pt
  12. Sales and tank readings are both gross or both temperature-corrected in the reconciliation Yes / No 1 pt
  13. The closing tank reading is taken at the same time as the closing sales totals on each day reviewed Yes / No 1 pt
  14. Days showing a large loss followed by an equal gain were set aside as timing errors, not counted as loss Yes / No 1 pt
  15. Entries on the 5 worst days were checked against the source reports for typing errors Yes / No 1 pt
  16. Loss was compared with daily sales volume to see whether it rises with throughput Yes / No 1 pt
  17. The trend was compared with the same weeks of last year to allow for seasonal temperature Yes / No 1 pt
  18. Changes of equipment, carrier or staff around the first abnormal day were listed Yes / No 1 pt
  19. First day of the abnormal variance trend Date
  20. Reliability of the reconciliation data Rating
    • Complete and consistent 5 pts
    • Some missing or mistimed readings 3 pts
    • Too unreliable to conclude 1 pt

2. Meter calibration 18 items

  1. The date of the last calibration is recorded for every meter drawing from the tank Yes / No 1 pt
  2. Date of the last meter calibration on the dispensers involved Date
  3. Calibration seals are intact on every meter drawing from the tank Yes / No 1 pt
  4. A test draw into a certified test measure was made at each nozzle of the grade Yes / No 1 pt
  5. The start of the variance trend was compared with the dates of meter repairs, replacements and recalibrations Yes / No 1 pt
  6. Each nozzle was tested at full flow Yes / No 1 pt
  7. Each nozzle was tested at slow flow Yes / No 1 pt
  8. The volume over- or under-delivered since the last calibration was estimated from each nozzle's error and its sales Yes / No 1 pt
  9. Test draw volumes were entered in the reconciliation as returns, not as sales Yes / No 1 pt
  10. Largest meter error found (cubic inches per 5 gallons or milliliters per 20 liters) Number
  11. Direction of the meter errors found Choice
    • All within tolerance
    • Over-delivering to customers
    • Under-delivering to customers
    • Mixed
  12. Meters outside the tolerance set by weights and measures rules were taken out of service or recalibrated Yes / No 1 pt
  13. Dispenser totalizer readings match the volumes reported by the point of sale for the same period Yes / No 1 pt
  14. Electronic and mechanical totalizers agree on the dispensers that have both Yes / No 1 pt
  15. No dispenser shows volume advancing on the totalizer with the nozzle hung up Yes / No 1 pt
  16. Results of the last two calibrations were compared to find meters that drift between visits Yes / No 1 pt
  17. Volume of the variance explained by meter error in the period (gallons or liters) Number
  18. The calibration technician's report is on file Yes / No 1 pt

3. Leak indicators 18 items

  1. The tank gauge shows no active leak alarm for the tank Yes / No 1 pt
  2. The alarm history of the tank gauge was printed for the last 90 days Yes / No 1 pt
  3. The most recent in-tank leak test of the tank passed Yes / No 1 pt
  4. Date of the most recent passed leak test of the tank Date
  5. The line leak detector on each product line of the tank passed its most recent test Yes / No 1 pt
  6. Customers or cashiers report no unusually slow flow on the grade Yes / No 1 pt
  7. The submersible pump sump of the tank was opened and is free of fuel Yes / No 1 pt
  8. The under-dispenser containment of each dispenser on the grade is free of fuel Yes / No 1 pt
  9. Sump sensors were tested and raised an alarm at the tank gauge Yes / No 1 pt
  10. The interstitial space of a double-wall tank shows no liquid alarm Yes / No 1 pt
  11. No fuel odor is present in the store, basement or nearby utility vaults Yes / No 1 pt
  12. Monitoring wells or observation wells on site show no fuel or sheen Yes / No 1 pt
  13. No fuel sheen is visible in the storm drain or ditch nearest the tank pad Yes / No 1 pt
  14. Hoses, breakaways and swivels on the grade show no weeping at the islands Yes / No 1 pt
  15. The water level in the tank is stable from day to day Yes / No 1 pt
  16. Water level in the tank at the time of the visit (inches or millimeters) Number
  17. Tank level was recorded with the site closed or the grade bagged off for several hours, and it did not drop Yes / No 1 pt
  18. Evidence of a release Rating
    • None found 5 pts
    • Inconclusive, precision test ordered 3 pts
    • Fuel found outside the tank system 1 pt

4. Delivery shortages 16 items

  1. Each delivery in the period is recorded on the day it was received Yes / No 1 pt
  2. The bill of lading volume was compared with the tank gauge delivery report for every delivery in the period Yes / No 1 pt
  3. Deliveries in the period where the gauge increase was short of the bill of lading by more than company tolerance Number
  4. Shortages were compared by carrier and by driver to look for a repeat pattern Yes / No 1 pt
  5. Bill of lading volumes are compared on the same basis (gross or net) as the tank gauge increase Yes / No 1 pt
  6. Sales made while the tanker was unloading were added back when the delivery was measured Yes / No 1 pt
  7. The tank gauge delivery report shows the start and end time of each drop Yes / No 1 pt
  8. A site employee checked the tanker compartments as empty after the drop on the deliveries reviewed Yes / No 1 pt
  9. The site employee signed the delivery ticket only after checking the compartments Yes / No 1 pt
  10. Deliveries made while the site was closed are verified from the tank gauge report the next morning Yes / No 1 pt
  11. Split loads shared with another site show the volume left for this site on the paperwork Yes / No 1 pt
  12. No delivery was recorded against the wrong tank Yes / No 1 pt
  13. Compartment seals or the loading terminal's seal numbers were checked against the bill of lading where seals are used Yes / No 1 pt
  14. Short deliveries were claimed from the carrier or supplier within the claim deadline Yes / No 1 pt
  15. Video of the tank pad during the 3 most recent deliveries was reviewed Yes / No 1 pt
  16. Delivery verification at this site Rating
    • Every drop measured and checked 5 pts
    • Checked on paper only 3 pts
    • Not checked 1 pt

5. Theft indicators 16 items

  1. Fill caps were found locked on every tank at the time of the visit Yes / No 1 pt
  2. No fill cap lock shows cut or pry marks Yes / No 1 pt
  3. The tank gauge shows no unexplained drop in level while the site was closed Yes / No 1 pt
  4. Tank level drops during closed hours were checked against the tank pad video Yes / No 1 pt
  5. Drive-offs recorded in the period were totaled and entered in the reconciliation Yes / No 1 pt
  6. Volume lost to recorded drive-offs in the period (gallons or liters) Number
  7. Pump tests and technician dispensing in the period are supported by signed work orders Yes / No 1 pt
  8. Voided and suspended fuel sales were reviewed by cashier for the period Yes / No 1 pt
  9. Dispenser authorizations made from the console in manual or stand-alone mode were reviewed Yes / No 1 pt
  10. No dispenser was left in stand-alone mode outside a recorded system outage Yes / No 1 pt
  11. Sales rung at a price far below the posted price were looked for in the transaction report Yes / No 1 pt
  12. Unusually large single transactions at the high-flow diesel lanes were reviewed on video Yes / No 1 pt
  13. Pulser or dispenser door tampering was checked by a technician on dispensers with volume not matching sales Yes / No 1 pt
  14. Fuel used by the site itself (generator, mower, company vehicles) is recorded Yes / No 1 pt
  15. Losses were compared with the shift schedule to see whether they follow one employee or one shift Yes / No 1 pt
  16. Indication of theft Rating
    • No indication 5 pts
    • Unexplained events needing follow-up 3 pts
    • Clear evidence of theft 1 pt

6. Escalation 15 items

  1. The variance was reported to the district manager within the time set by company policy Yes / No 1 pt
  2. A variance above the company's leak-check threshold was reported to the environmental or compliance contact Yes / No 1 pt
  3. A suspected release was reported to the regulator as required by local regulation Yes / No 1 pt
  4. A precision tank or line tightness test was ordered where the cause remains unexplained Yes / No 1 pt
  5. The affected grade was taken out of service where a release is suspected Yes / No 1 pt
  6. Each step of the investigation is written down with its date Yes / No 1 pt
  7. The probable cause is stated in the investigation record Yes / No 1 pt
  8. Probable cause Choice
    • Paperwork or timing error
    • Meter error
    • Delivery shortage
    • Theft
    • Leak or still unexplained
  9. Daily monitoring of the tank continues until the variance returns within tolerance Yes / No 1 pt
  10. A follow-up review date has been set Yes / No 1 pt
  11. Date of the follow-up review Date
  12. Name of the person leading the investigation Short text
  13. Name of the site manager Short text
  14. Status of the investigation Rating
    • Cause found and corrected 5 pts
    • Cause found, correction in progress 4 pts
    • Cause not yet found, testing under way 2 pts
    • No action taken 1 pt
  15. Conclusions and corrective actions Comments

About this template

This checklist is part of the Bindy template library. Yes / No checks score 1 point when met; ratings score the points shown for each option. The overall score is the percentage of points earned, with N/A answers excluded. In Bindy you can add photos, assign corrective actions, require sign-off and compare results across sites.

Categories

Related templates

← All templates

Brand standards

At every site, every time

Start Free Contact us