Northern Pacific Center, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company. Country/Territory United States of America Type of court National - higher court Date Jul 4, 2012 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name United States Court of Appeal for the Eigth Circuit Judge Murphy, Melloy and Colloton. Reference number Nos. 11-3103/3139 Language English Subject Land & soil, Environment gen. Keyword Soil pollution/quality Liability/compensation Hazardous substances Abstract The Northern Pacific Center incurred costs to reduce pollution on a property it owns in Brainerd, Minnesota which had formerly been owned by BNSF Railway and used as a railcar construction and maintenance facility. When the contamination was discovered, the former owner conducted cleanup sufficient to obtain sign-off by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at that time, but not sufficient to allow redevelopment later planned by the new owner. The Center sued BNSF under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA), Minn. Stat. § 115B.01 et seq., to recover its costs. BNSF moved for summary judgment on the basis of MERLA's statute of limitations, which the district court denied. Both parties later moved for summary judgment on the merits, which the district court granted to BNSF, concluding that "the type of costs the Center had incurred were not recoverable under MERLA." The Center appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment and BNSF cross appealed the district court's denial of summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The Appeals Court ruled, "We affirm the grant of summary judgment to BNSF and dismiss BNSF's cross appeal as moot". The key determination in the case is whether the type of costs incurred was "remedial" or "removal". Response costs are defined under MERLA to include both removal costs and costs of “remedial action.” The definitions of “removal” and “remedial action” under MERLA (similar to under the federal cleanup statute) are long and somewhat overlapping. Private parties in Minnesota have relied on the breadth of the “removal” definition as authorizing recovery under MERLA of a broad range of cleanup costs. The 8th Circuit, in affirming the district courts decision in Northern Pacific, indicated that such reliance was misplaced. Under the 8th Circuits interpretation, removal costs are limited to those costs expended to “mitigate immediate harm,” and do not include “long-term cleanup costs.” Full text COU-159403.pdf