Whether a federal agency's submission of a permit renewal application under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires a separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact analysis when the agency has already conducted environmental assessments under RCRA

No question identified. : 2 expire on October 15, 2025. The jurisdiction of this Court would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). The opinion of the court of appeals (App., infra, la-45a) is reported at 128 F.4th 1089. The court’s order denying rehearing (App., infra, 46a) is unreported. The order of the district court (App., infra, 47a-59a) is available at 2022 WL 5246740. 1. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires any facility that treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste to obtain a permit and comply with federal requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 42 U.S.C. 6925. RCRA provides for the development and consideration of extensive environmental information as part of the permitting process, as well as an opportunity for public comment before a permit is issued. See 42 U.S.C. 6974. States and territories may administer hazardous waste programs under RCRA if authorized by EPA. See 42 U.S.C. 6903(31), 6926. Federal agencies that operate hazardous waste facilities within the jurisdiction of a State or territory must comply with its authorized permitting programs. See 42 U.S.C. 6961 (a). Pursuant to RCRA, EPA has authorized Guam’s environmental agency, Guam EPA, to administer a hazardous waste program. App., infra, 15a. Guam EPA requires permittees to reapply for permits every three years. Ibid. When a permittee timely applies for renewal, Guam EPA regulations provide that the “expired permit 3 continue[s] in force sone until the effective date of a new permit.” Ibid. (citation omitted; brackets in original). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) generally requires federal agencies to prepare Environmental Impact Statements before taking “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (C). Courts have recognized that “an agency need not comply with NEPA’s procedural requirements” in contexts where another statute “conflict[s]” with or otherwise “displaces” NEPA’s requirements. App., infra, 26a (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 2. Andersen Air Force Base in Guam houses a waste treatment center at which the Navy and Air Force have, for decades, treated waste ordnance and other munitions by burning and detonating them. App., infra, 15a. The government has treated waste at Andersen continually since the early 1980s, and Andersen has held a RCRA permit for the site since 1982, requesting and receiving a permit renewal from Guam EPA every three years. See ibid. Guam EPA most recently renewed Andersen’s permit in 2018. App., infra, loa. In 2021, Andersen submitted another renewal application requesting a permit to continue operations for another three years. Ibid. Pursuant to RCRA, the application discussed various environmental issues and requirements for protecting human health and the environment. See id. at 14a, 28a. Guam EPA allowed a 45-day public comment period and held a public hearing. Id. at 4 16a. Guam EPA has not yet taken final action on the application. Ibid. Accordingly, the 2018 permit remains in force, pursuant to the governing regulations, and the government has continued to operate the waste treatment facility at Andersen. See id. at 15a16a. Respondent, a nonprofit corporation, sued in the District of Guam, alleging that the federal government had violated NEPA by submitting its 2021 permit-renewal application without first preparing a NEPA analysis. App., infra, lla, loa. The government filed a motion to dismiss both for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, which the district court granted. The district court agreed with the government that the court lacked jurisdiction for two reasons: (1) respondent lacked standing because any injury from continued operation of the waste treatment facility was not fairly traceable to the submission of the 2021 permit-renewal application, and (2) respondent’s claim was not ripe because submission of an application that Guam EPA h