Opinion ID: 2737138
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: EPA and WDNR’s Cooperative Agreement

Text: First, Glatfelter argues that EPA’s decision in selecting the response action was not in accordance with law because EPA delegated the task of conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to WDNR without a valid cooperative agreement. CERCLA allows for the delegation of responsibility for remedial action as follows: A State or political subdivision thereof or Indi- an tribe may apply to [EPA] to carry out ac- tions authorized in this section. If [EPA] de- termines that the State or political subdivision or Indian tribe has the capability to carry out any or all of such actions in accordance with the criteria and priorities established pursuant to section 9605(a)(8) of this title and to carry out related enforcement actions, [EPA] may en- ter into a contract or cooperative agreement with the State or political subdivision or Indian tribe to carry out such actions. [EPA] shall make a determination regarding such an appli- cation within 90 days after [EPA] receives the application. 3 42 U.S.C. § 9604(d)(1)(A). Glatfelter argues that a state has no authority to “carry out the actions authorized” by CERCLA without a cooperative agreement and therefore the lack of a cooperative agreement between EPA and WDNR would undermine the selected remedy for the Site. 3 The President has delegated to EPA the authority to undertake response action under CLERCLA; thus, where the statute refers to the President, we substitute EPA. See Exec. Order No. 12,580, 52 Fed. Reg. 2923 (Jan. 23, 1987). 10 Nos. 13-2436 & 13-2441 Glatfelter’s argument is academic, however, because EPA and WDNR did in fact enter into a cooperative agreement regarding the remedial investigation and feasibility study for the Site, and the government filed authenticated copies of that agreement in the district court. Glatfelter complains that the cooperative agreement was not included in the administrative record, but nothing in CERCLA or the national contingency plan requires that cooperative agreements be included in the administrative record. The administrative record need only include “the documents that form the basis for the selection of a response action.” 40 C.F.R. § 300.800(a). Typically, that includes the following:
data and analysis of the factual information, and data that may form a basis for the se- lection of a response action. …
and site-specific policy memoranda that may form a basis for the selection of the re- sponse action. …
available to the public under § 300.815 for remedial actions, or § 300.820 for removal actions. …

administrative record file. … Nos. 13-2436 & 13-2441 11 Id. § 300.810(a). Notably, this list contains no mention of cooperative agreements. Instead, it emphasizes documentation of the substantive factors that play a role in the selection of a remedy. As a result, we find no support for Glatfelter’s argument that the failure to include the cooperative agreement in the administrative record undermines the selected remedy. It is true that as a general matter “judicial review of any issues concerning the adequacy of any response action taken or ordered by [EPA] shall be limited to the administrative record.” 42 U.S.C. § 9613(j)(1). But “[o]therwise applicable principles of administrative law shall govern whether any supplemental materials may be considered by the court.” Id. Those principles allow a reviewing court to consider materials outside the administrative record “when it is necessary to create a record without which the challenge to the agency’s action cannot be evaluated.” USA Grp. Loan Servs., Inc. v. Riley, 82 F.3d 708, 715 (7th Cir. 1996). Here, it would be impossible to evaluate Glatfelter’s challenge to the selected remedy without considering the documents that the government contends make up the cooperative agreement between EPA and WDNR. Thus, the district court properly considered those documents. Moreover, those documents show that EPA and WDNR entered into a valid cooperative agreement, which granted WDNR authority to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study for the Site. As a result, EPA’s reliance on WDNR to complete those tasks was in accordance with the national contingency plan and does not provide a basis for reversal. 12 Nos. 13-2436 & 13-2441