By: Duane Pretorius, Environmental Manager – Sedgwick Australia

Incident summary

A truck accident occurred at a fuel service station, causing significant damage to the fuel pumps and canopy structure. This incident required an extensive repair period (approximately 14 months). The damage to the canopy resulted in 33,000 liters of contaminated fuel stored across four underground storage tanks (UST’s) at the location, subsequently causing delayed storage of the fuel in the USTs.

Works conducted

The claim initially started when the insured approached Sedgwick’s forensic accounting team with a business interruption claim, who then reached out to Sedgwick repair solutions to provide guidance and assistance with the disposal or possible alternative treatment solutions of the contaminated fuel. After a comprehensive assessment of the scope of works, Sedgwick presented alternative waste solutions to mitigate product loss and provide environmentally responsible recycling options. The scope was limited to:

• Initial site visit, followed by pumping the fuel from the USTs into holding tanks
• Treating and filtering the fuel on-site
• Vacuuming water from the tanks and disposing it at an accredited disposal facility
• Transporting the fuel to a storage facility for further blending and treatment
• Flushing and draining the tanks
• Vacuum-testing the four tanks and issuing a test report.

Alternate solutions

The initial analysis proved the fuel was not up to the insured’s suppliers’ standards due to its storage in the USTs for a prolonged period. Alternative proposals were requested from two external waste management and
fuel recycling contractors. Proposal one was to reuse and process the fuel, which would blend the fuel for furnace fuel, whilst proposal two was to regenerate and filter the fuel (polishing) and resell it to a bulk fuel supplier.
The fuel regeneration option was selected and a total of 32,700 litres of contaminated fuel was extracted and pumped from the USTs.

Savings and contributions

The fuel regeneration option resulted in the insured receiving a rebate of $6360 (excluding GST) for the recycled fuel. Furthermore, efficient on-site management and strategic planning with service providers led to cost
savings and a satisfied insured.

Conclusion

Sedgwick effectively managed the removal of contaminated fuel from the USTs. The methodologies and processes followed were the most efficient, economical and lowest carbon emission saving option in comparison to the conventional disposal of fuel. An estimated volume of nearly 2,000 litres of water was extracted from the four tanks and disposed of at an accredited disposal facility. This case study highlights the importance of seeking sustainable solutions for fuel supply system-related claims and the positive outcomes that can be achieved through collaboration.