## Facts

- Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (MSP) operated a thermal hazardous-waste treatment facility in Amelia, Louisiana using a large rotary kiln.
- The facility processed contaminated soils and other hazardous waste at high temperatures, generating emissions and waste streams regulated under RCRA, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.
- MSP asserted that its output material (slag/aggregate) qualified as a “product” under EPA’s “Product Rule,” and therefore was exempt from RCRA hazardous-waste controls.
- The United States brought a civil enforcement action seeking injunctive relief under federal environmental statutes.
- The district court issued permanent injunctions, but conditionally stayed them, including by restricting certain distributions of corporate income.
- At trial, a jury answered some special interrogatories but deadlocked on others; the district court resolved remaining matters and entered relief in the enforcement action.

## Issues

1. Whether MSP’s processed output qualified as a “product” exempt from RCRA regulation under the EPA “Product Rule,” rather than a regulated hazardous-waste residue produced by a thermal treatment unit.
2. Whether, after a jury returned partial interrogatory answers and deadlocked on others, the district court could resolve the remaining issues without violating the Seventh Amendment or federal procedure.
3. Whether the district court’s injunctions, stays, and conditions (including limits on corporate distributions) were within its equitable authority in an environmental enforcement action.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the enforcement outcomes against MSP in this appeal’s posture.
- The court rejected MSP’s attempt to use the Product Rule to avoid RCRA regulation applicable to hazardous-waste incinerators/industrial furnaces.
- The court approved the district court’s completion of decision-making after the jury’s partial verdict, recognizing the court’s ability to resolve unresolved matters consistent with preserved jury findings.
- The court left permanent injunctions in place and continued the stay on the same condition, while remanding for a supplemental explanation so the district court could dissolve or continue the injunctions, with or without the stay and condition, subject to further appellate review.

## Legal Principles

- RCRA’s permitting and control requirements apply based on the functional nature of an operation; a facility performing thermal treatment of hazardous waste may be regulated as an incinerator or industrial furnace notwithstanding “recycling” labels.
- The EPA “Product Rule” does not exempt outputs that, in substance, reflect treatment of hazardous waste as a means of disposal rather than production of a legitimate commercial product.
- When a jury returns findings on some interrogatories but deadlocks on others, a district court may proceed by honoring the jury’s determinations and resolving remaining issues where permitted by the posture and nature of the relief sought, without reexamining decided factual issues.
- District courts have broad equitable authority in environmental enforcement to issue and structure injunctive relief, including conditioning stays to preserve the effectiveness of final relief and regulatory compliance.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s enforcement approach requiring MSP to comply with stringent RCRA controls for thermal hazardous-waste treatment, declined to treat MSP’s output as exempt under the Product Rule, and sustained flexible injunctive management, including conditional stays, while allowing the district court to further explain and adjust the injunction framework under appellate supervision.


United States v. Marine Shale Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 1361 (5th Cir. 1996)