This page is designed to help owners, operators, consultants, and other stakeholders better understand MUSTA’s programs, processes, and requirements.
Applicants should ensure that eligible Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) are properly registered with the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Fire Services, Storage Tank Section (LARA) before applying to MUSTA.
To update LARA registration, contact LARA-UST-AST@Michigan.gov
To apply for a MUSTA policy, the MUSTA Request for Determination and Documentation of FR Form and eligible FR mechanism (State Financial Test, Letter of Credit, Surety Bond, etc.) for the applicable deductible amount should be submitted to EGLE-MUSTA@Michigan.gov
No. Upon initial approval, a two-year MUSTA FR policy will be issued which requires the Owner and Operator (O/O) to submit a MUSTA Documentation of FR Form and mechanism documenting FR for the applicable deductible amount every other year.
No. Only one applicant is eligible to apply. Lessor/Lessee should look at contracts to determine which party is responsible for maintaining FR and registering as the O/O with the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Fire Services, Storage Tank Section (LARA) before applying for a MUSTA FR Policy. We are happy to include all contacts listed on MUSTA forms in correspondence.
There is no annual premium or fee. A cost may be incurred from a third party for purchasing an eligible mechanism (Letter of Credit, Surety Bond, etc.) to document FR.
The deductible is based on the total number of Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), an Owner and Operator (O/O) is affiliated with and/or owns/operates within the State of Michigan. If an O/O or its affiliates owns or operates seven (7) or less USTs, the deductible amount is $2,000 per claim. If an O/O or its affiliates owns or operates eight (8) or more USTs, the deductible amount is $10,000 per claim.
The following steps should be taken:
Please refer to the LARA Intent of Removal, Closure or Change-In-Service of Underground Storage Tanks Form (BFE-3824)
Only the Owner and Operator (O/O) of the refined petroleum UST system at the time the confirmed release is reported to LARA is eligible to file a MUSTA Claim Form.
For additional information on MUSTA claim eligibility please refer to Section 21510 of Part 215 (MCL - Section 324.21510 - Michigan Legislature).
Yes, only if the approved MUSTA Claimant name is identified on the documentation of the transfer of property to the new Owner who is registered with the LARA Storage Tank Section.
The Transfer of Claim Submittal Form can be found on the MUSTA webpage.
To update a company name associated with an approved MUSTA claim the following must be completed.
Yes. A Claim for a release from a facility not utilizing MUSTA to meet FR obligations can be submitted to MUSTA for review and potential approval of coverage, as a MUSTA FR Policy is not required. However, the potential claimant must have some form of financial responsibility in place (commercial pollution insurance policy) at the time the release is discovered, to be eligible.
Yes, if all other eligibility requirements are met.
MUSTA Claims are denied primarily for the following reasons:
Assuming the new release meets MUSTA, eligibility requirements and is eligible for MUSTA FR coverage, these situations will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If possible, MUSTA expects that costs associated with the ineligible release(s) to be separated from those related to the new release. If this cannot be done, as in the case of comingled plumes, a cost allocation may be requested.
Yes. If MUSTA eligibility requirements are met for the new release, associated corrective actions will be eligible for MUSTA coverage. Costs related to the additional release will be subject to the reimbursement limit of the original claim.
For corrective actions associated with the new release to be covered by MUSTA , the Additional Release Eligibility Submittal Form should be completed and submitted to MUSTA for review and approval.
Yes. The Claimant and/or Consultant has 14 business days from the day of receipt of the denied claims and/or invoice charges to file a Request for Review by the MUSTA Administrator.
No. If there is no UST, or a UST was closed in place, the release should have been known at the time the UST(s) was/were removed or closed-in-place, which means it was not reported within 24 hours of its discovery and may have occurred prior to December 30, 2014, depending on when the UST(s) were closed.
The claims limit for a release is $1 million minus the appropriate deductible amount of either $2,000 or $10,000. Two or more claims arising out of the same, interrelated, associated, repeated or continuous release, or series of releases are subject to one claims limit. Any claim that takes place over two or more claim periods is subject to one claims limit.
The claim period aggregate limit is $1 million for all releases discovered during a claim period for O/Os and affiliates with up to 100 USTs. O/Os and affiliates of more than 100 USTs are subject to a claim period aggregate limit of $2 million for all releases discovered during a claim period. These aggregate limits are applied based on the claim year for which the release(s) are discovered regardless of the year(s) in which the claims are filed, corrective actions are performed, or invoices are submitted.
A claim period is a one-year period from October 1st of each year through September 30th of the following year.
No. The acceptance of LRP claims ended in August of 2018.
Yes. The Claimant and/or Consultant has 14 business days from the day of receipt of the denied claims and/or invoice charges to file a Request for Review by the MUSTA Administrator.
A local unit of government or county road commission may file a PHC Claim to seek reimbursement for certain costs related to the management, relocation, or disposal of media contaminated by a release or releases from a refined petroleum underground storage tank system or systems per Section 21506a(f) of Part 215. The Claim must be associated with a release of refined petroleum from a UST system managed under Part 213 for corrective actions completed after January 24, 2018. An institutional control must be in place prior to initiation of the work.
A public highway, street, road, or alley, that are owned by a local unit of government or county road commission are eligible for PHC funding, provided all other eligibility requirements are met.
No. The PHC program may only be used for the management, relocation, or disposal of contaminated media encountered during road or public utility maintenance, repair, or expansion.
Yes. The Claimant and/or Consultant has 14 business days from the day of receipt of the denied claims and/or invoice charges to file a Request for Review by the MUSTA Administrator.
For each program, eligibility begins as specified below:
No. Section 21510c(p) of Part 215 prohibits approval of costs arising from corrective actions performed in excess of the corrective actions required to obtain a restricted closure based on the current land use.
Yes, MUSTA currently reimburses for reasonable compensation to off-site property owners for restrictions placed on their property. It is recommended that the MUSTA Administrator and assigned MUSTA Environmental Quality Analyst are kept informed on the negotiations of the compensation amount to ascertain what is reasonable.
No. MUSTA can only reimburse for corrective actions related to the release for which a claim is approved (a CAP may be developed to address multiple releases), and per Section 21510c(p) of Part 215, can only reimburse costs for corrective actions necessary to obtain restricted closure (closure via institutional controls) based on land use at the time the discovery of the release for which the claim was approved.
MUSTA can only reimburse for corrective actions required to obtain restricted closures based on the use of the property at the time of the discovery of the release for which a Claim was approved and for costs that are reasonable and necessary considering the conditions at the site of the release.
No. Not without prior written approval from the MUSTA Administrator.
Per Part 215 “prior written approval” from the MUSTA Administrator is required for:
*Please note, with prior-written approval, all other eligibility requirements must be met.
No.
No. Currently there is not an expiration date or deadline for submittal of invoices to MUSTA. However, the first invoice should not be submitted until after the Claim is approved and the Claimant is registered in SIGMA, the state’s payment program.
An invoice received prior to the approval of the associated Claim, or the completion of the SIGMA registration will be rejected. Although there is no deadline for the submittal of invoices it should be noted that following closure of a MUSTA or LRP covered release, only those costs for the abandonment of monitoring wells and/or remediation system decommissioning are eligible for reimbursement. These activities must be performed within one (1) year of the closure date.
No. MUSTA is not involved in the contractual relationship between a Claimant and their consultant. MUSTA is required to issue two-party checks so that both parties are required to endorse before they are cashed or deposited by the Claimant.
No.
If three (3) responsive bids are not received, bids shall be solicited from additional contractor(s). If a third responsive bid cannot be obtained, the Claimant or authorized representative must seek and receive approval from the MUSTA Administrator to rely on less than three (3) bids prior to the services being performed.
No. MUSTA is meant to be a reimbursement program and therefore the consultant should have been paid for corrective actions completed during the invoicing period prior to seeking reimbursement from MUSTA.
No. Costs that have been, or will be submitted to, or have been paid pursuant to an insurance policy or policies are not eligible for reimbursement.
Yes.
If you know an item is ineligible, then it should not be included in the total claimed on the Invoice Submittal Form and should be identified as ineligible on the backup documentation (e.g. the consultant invoices). However, if a consultant is unsure if an item is ineligible, it can be submitted, and MUSTA staff will make the determination and deduct any ineligible costs from the reimbursement total.
A consultant is allowed a per-diem rate in accordance with SOC code 2-4 if a hotel receipt is provided. However, the requirement for a hotel receipt is waived in the case of a subcontractor.
Yes.
Yes.
If the service requires competitive bidding per the Competitive Bidding Process document, then the SOC does not apply.
If the service and associated costs are covered under the SOC, then reimbursement will be based on the SOC.
No. For limited source removal during initial response activity without bids, the consultant or claimant should calculate the total cost of excavation, transport, and disposal of contaminated soil, provide cost per ton, total tons, and code appropriately. Heavy equipment mob/demob, if applicable, would be listed under a separate code (heavy equipment mob/demob is not eligible for reimbursement if the work is performed in coordination with UST system removal or placement). Similarly, this would also apply to limited source removal of contaminated liquids during initial response activities where total cost of recovery, transport and disposal of liquids is calculated and divided by total gallons to obtain a cost per gallon.
Use the code NL for ‘not listed’.
A subcontractor markup is not included in the subcontractor service code maximum. It is an additional charge under its own code.
