## Facts

- Hercules, Inc. operated a New Jersey facility regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and subject to NPDES effluent limits and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping duties.
- Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) required Hercules to measure, document, and report pollutant discharges from specified outfalls.
- In March 1989, Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. (PIRG) sent a 60-day notice of intent to sue to Hercules, EPA, and the state, identifying 68 alleged discharge exceedances by parameter at two outfalls during a defined time period.
- After the waiting period, PIRG filed a complaint listing 87 discharge violations, including more than 30 additional exceedances not listed in the notice; most of the added exceedances predated the notice.
- PIRG later sought summary judgment on a further-expanded set of alleged violations, including additional discharge exceedances and numerous monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping violations tied to the same parameters and outfalls.
- Hercules argued PIRG could sue only for violations specifically itemized in the notice letter and that unlisted discharge and ancillary violations were barred for inadequate notice.
- The district court limited the case largely to discharge violations specifically listed in the notice and certain post-complaint discharge violations, excluding many pre-complaint unlisted discharge exceedances and many monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping claims.
- PIRG appealed the notice ruling; Hercules cross-appealed on other aspects of the district court’s rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether a CWA citizen-suit notice must itemize every discharge exceedance by date, or whether it can cover later-discovered, similar discharge violations (same parameter and outfall within the relevant time period) not individually listed.
2. Whether notice of excessive discharges for particular parameters and outfalls also provides adequate notice of closely related monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping violations for those same parameters and outfalls, even if not separately itemized.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed in part and remanded.
- A notice that functionally identifies the alleged discharge violations (including facility, outfall, parameter, and general time frame) is sufficient under 40 C.F.R. § 135.3(a) to support claims for additional, later-discovered discharge violations of the same type within that time frame.
- When an excessive discharge is properly noticed, later-discovered monitoring violations for the same parameter at the same outfall on the relevant day may be included without a separate notice itemizing the monitoring violation.
- By similar reasoning, notice of discharge exceedances can encompass closely related reporting and recordkeeping violations tied to the same parameters, outfalls, and time period.
- The district court’s narrower approach—requiring near-complete enumeration of each violation as a prerequisite to suit—was rejected as inconsistent with the regulation’s “sufficient information” standard and the purpose of the 60-day notice requirement.

## Legal Principles

- CWA citizen-suit notice is evaluated for functional sufficiency: it must provide enough information to permit recipients to identify the alleged standard violated, the activity constituting the violation, responsible parties, and relevant location/time frame.  
- A notice identifying discharge exceedances for specified parameters at specified outfalls can support claims for additional discharge exceedances of the same parameter at the same outfall within the relevant period, even if not individually listed in the notice.
- Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping duties are closely connected to effluent limitations; notice of the underlying discharge exceedances may also suffice for related ancillary violations concerning the same parameters and outfalls.
- The notice requirement is intended to enable agency enforcement and voluntary compliance before litigation; it is not a technical trap requiring serial notices for each newly discovered violation of the same type.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that CWA 60-day notice is satisfied when it provides enough detail to identify the alleged noncompliance pattern at specified outfalls and parameters, allowing citizen plaintiffs to pursue later-discovered, similar discharge exceedances and closely related monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping violations without separately itemizing each one in the initial notice.


Pub. Int. Rsch. Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Hercules, Inc., 50 F.3d 1239 (3d Cir. 1995)