NJDEP

Subscribe to NJDEP

Last week, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection held a press conference to announce the filing of eight new environmental enforcement actions. Targeted sites include Camden’s Puchack Wellfield Superfund Site, the Fillit Corp. site in Palmyra, 323 North Olden Ave. in Trenton, the Novick Chemical site in Newark, Tirpok Cleaners in Flemington, and gas stations in Newark, Camden and Phillipsburg.

This is the State’s second round of environmental enforcement actions this year, following six enforcement actions filed in August. Press releases related to this announcement stylized the new actions as “Environmental Justice Actions.” Environmental Justice addresses the disproportionate impacts of environmental consequences on groups of people based on race, color, national origin, or income. Accordingly, the State’s press releases include the mean income and minority population percentage of the areas surrounding each new enforcement site.

In addition to announcing the newly filed actions, the State also announced the creation of an “Environmental Enforcement and Environmental Justice Section” in the office of the Attorney General. While statements at the press conference suggested that this section is something never before seen in New Jersey, in fact the section appears to be a recycled version of the short-lived Environmental Prosecutor’s Office created by Governor Florio in 1992 and eliminated by Governor Whitman in 1994. Regardless, the creation of the office clearly conveys the message that aggressive environmental enforcement will continue throughout the current administration.

The action concerning the Puchack Wellfield, a Superfund Site that the EPA has been overseeing since the late 1990s, is notable among those filed last week because it seeks natural resources damages for injury to groundwater. As alleged by the State in that action, “there are thousands of sites in New Jersey confirmed as having groundwater contaminated with hazardous substances.” The historic contamination at those sites will provide the new enforcement section with ample opportunity to seek natural resources damages in future actions.

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently ruled that a landowner’s lawsuit against a former attorney and environmental consultant could proceed to the discovery phase.  In CCM Properties, LLC, et al. v. Pieper, et al, the plaintiff engaged an environmental consultant to perform a ground penetrating radar survey of a property to determine whether any underground storage tanks were present.  The contract specifically stated that no historical analysis or soil sampling would be performed, and further stated that the proposed work did not satisfy New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection requirements.  The consultant performed the scan, found two USTs, and recommended their proper removal.  Despite the fact that an investigation meeting NJDEP requirements had not been performed, plaintiff’s attorney advised that “all issues regarding the purchase of the subject property [were] resolved,” inducing plaintiff to close on the property.  Three  years later, the bank, upon receiving plaintiff’s refinancing application, commissioned a Phase I report.  The Phase I report stated that, in addition to the two discovered USTs, the property once featured another UST and a 250,000 gallon above ground storage tank.  The bank denied the refinance application.  Three years after the Phase I report, plaintiffs filed suit based upon the findings therein.  In particular, plaintiffs leveled a malpractice claim against the attorney for advising them to take title after the ground penetrating radar survey, and malpractice and breach of contract claims against the consultant for failing to advise that further investigation was needed.

Soon thereafter, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the statute of limitations had expired, and that plaintiff had failed to state a claim.  The trial court agreed.  The Appellate Division reversed.

The Appellate Division first addressed the attorney malpractice statute of limitations issue.  Noting that it is very difficult for lay persons to know that they have been injured until actual damage occurs, the Appellate Division held that plaintiff’s malpractice action did not accrue until it actually received the Phase I report that served as the basis of the bank’s denial.  Thus, the six year statute of limitations did not bar the attorney malpractice action.  The Appellate Division next turned to the consultant malpractice action, and held that that action was properly dismissed.  The Appellate Division observed that the contract precisely circumscribed the consultant’s duties.  The contract expressly stated that the ground penetrating radar survey did not meet NJDEP requirements, and imposed no duty to detect and advise of aboveground storage tanks, soil contamination, or prior use of the property.  Thus, the consultant malpractice action was properly dismissed.

The breach of contract claim against the consultant however, was not.  The Appellate Division noted that, at the initial stages of litigation, the plaintiff’s allegations are treated as true, and that even “obscure statements” that establish a cause of action will overcome a motion for dismissal.  In light of the foregoing, the Appellate Division held that the consultant’s failure to find a third UST supported a breach of contract claim, and that that cause of action could go forward.

For those in the market for potentially contaminated properties, this case highlights the importance of sound legal counsel when interacting with consultants and their work product.  For consultants, the case highlights the value of good drafting.

The Appellate Division has affirmed a $66,200 administrative penalty imposed by DEP against the owner of a shopping center constructed atop a closed municipal landfill. The unpublished and non-precedential decision in NJDEP v. Raritan Shopping Center LP found liability based on current ownership of the contaminated site, despite the landowner never discharging hazardous substances and conducting due diligence prior to purchasing.

Raritan purchased the property in 1993 after conducting environmental tests that discovered low levels of tetrachlorothylene (a common solvent also known as Perc) in the groundwater. The Perc was attributed to the closed landfill. In 2003, a prospective purchaser detected additional groundwater contamination, leading to the discovery and excavation of three buried steel drums. Thereafter, Raritan entered into an agreement to submit remedial reports to DEP. In 2004, Raritan submitted the required reports and requested a no-further action letter. DEP rejected Raritan’s request and instead requested submission of a remedial action workplan. In 2011, DEP advised Raritan of its remedial obligations. In 2014, DEP issued an administrative order requiring Raritan to remediate the groundwater contamination and assessing the $66,200 fine.

Raritan requested a hearing and the administrative law judge found in favor of DEP. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed based on a DEP regulation stating that Spill Act liability includes “subsequent owners of real property where the discharge occurred prior to the filing of [a no further action letter or response action outcome] with the Department.” N.J.A.C. 7:26C-1.4(a)(4). Curiously, the Appellate Division does not explain why DEP’s interpretation of Spill Act liability, a purely legal question, is entitled to deference. Rather, the decision cites to N.J. Schs. Dev. Auth. v. Marcantuone, 428 N.J. Super. 546, 559 (App. Div. 2012), which states that liability may exist for an owner who, unlike Raritan, purchased contaminated property without conducting due diligence. In this case, the innocent purchaser defense did not apply because Raritan’s due diligence detected the contamination.

Though unpublished, the decision demonstrates the Court’s deference to DEP’s expansive interpretation of environmental liability. Perhaps more practically, the case also demonstrates the prudence of remediating reported discharges while seeking contribution from those who discharged the hazardous substances.

On September 5, 2018, the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals (“Third Circuit”) rendered a decision that could potentially implicate the NJDEP permitting process in future Natural Gas Act and other federal permitting actions.

In Township of Bordentown, et al. v. FERC, No. 17-3207 (3rd Cir.  September 5, 2018), the Third Circuit held that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) could not deny the Petitioners the ability to request an adjudicatory hearing under the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (“FWPA”) solely on the basis of preemption of the Federal Natural Gas Act (“NGA”). This opinion means that challengers have at least the right to request an administrative hearing for State-issued environmental permits, even for certain Federally-permitted projects. If a state environmental agency like the NJDEP were to grant such a hearing, this could significantly delay the commencement of a project.

By way of background, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. (“Transco”) proposed to upgrade its existing interstate natural gas pipeline system – including the construction of a new mater and regulating station, compressor station, and electrical substation along a lateral in Chesterfield, NJ – and conduct certain modifications in Mercer County, NJ (the “Project”). The Project required, and obtained, approvals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) under the NGA. In addition, the Project is to be situated in freshwater wetlands and transition areas requiring the discharge of fill or dredge material into navigable waters, as well as a significant diversion of volumes of water. The discharge of dredge and fill material into navigable waters requires a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act , 33 U.S.C. 1341(a) (“CWA”). New Jersey has assumed permitting authority for certain navigable waters such as those involving the Project, which is implemented under the FWPA. Transco applied for, and obtained, a Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit and Water Quality Certification.

Once NJDEP issued the permit, and pursuant to the FWPA, the Petitioners requested an adjudicatory hearing. NJDEP denied the hearing based solely upon the NGA’s requirement that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to review the issuance of permits such that the state administrative hearing process is not applicable.

The Third Circuit concluded otherwise, and ruled that the administrative hearing process provided under state law is not precluded by the court’s exclusive jurisdiction under the NGA. In doing so, the Third Circuit reviewed the NGA and concluded that its jurisdiction is limited to civil actions, and not administrative proceedings. The Third Circuit also reviewed case law from the Supreme Court of the United States and other Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, and concluded that the hearings at the administrative hearing level were not civil actions as referenced in the NGA, even if administrative proceedings mirror adversarial trials. Thus, the NGA “leaves untouched the state’s internal administrative process, which may continue to operate as it would in the ordinary course under state law.”

Depending on the Federal permitting process involved, applicants must consider the possibility that an administrative hearing may – and can, if granted – be considered as part of the timing of the state permitting process. The Third Circuit’s opinion, of course, is limited to the applicability of an administrative hearing in a state-permitting program delegated under a Federal statute, in this case the delegation of CWA authority to the NJDEP under the FWPA. However, the analysis of whether an administrative hearing is a judicial action can be read beyond its applicability to the FWPA. Each individual permittee applying under State law must always add a permit of time predicted for the hearing, if a hearing is granted, as part of its construction planning process. In addition, permittees may now want to vigorously oppose adjudicatory requests, as they can be used offensively by project challengers to delay a project.

It should be noted that the vast majority of the opinion provides a detailed analysis of FERC’s issuance of certificate of public convenience and necessity, and its subsequent analysis under the Federal National Environmental Protection Act (“NEPA”). The Third Circuit issues important conclusions regarding the applicability of a related intrastate project and its impact on the NEPA analysis. However, the important takeaway from this opinion is the applicability of the state administrative hearing process to state permits issued for Federal projects, and its impact on the timing of a project.

Effective August 6, 2018, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP” or the “Department”) adopted amendments to several key rules governing site remediation—including Discharges of Petroleum and Other Hazardous Substances (N.J.A.C. 7:1E); Heating Oil Tank System Remediation Rules; Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites (“ARRCS,” N.J.A.C. 7:26C); and the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (“Technical Regulations,” N.J.A.C. 7:26E).

While this rule adoption made many modifications to these regulations, we call two significant changes to your attention. The first involves the use of alternative fill materials at remediation and redevelopment sites, while the second concerns the expansion of the definition of “person responsible for conducting the remediation.”

Alternative Fill

Alternative Fill is material used in a remediation containing contaminants exceeding the most stringent cleanup standard applicable to a site. The amendments to both ARRCS and the Technical Regulations will result in NJDEP being more involved in many cases using alternative fill, requiring review and approval prior to its use on a contaminated site. Previously, NJDEP did not have such broad authority, which allowed the use of fill without the delays caused by NJDEP review.

If the person responsible for conducting the remediation (“PRCR”) proposes to import alternative fill that does not meet the requirements of the Technical Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.2(b), discussed below), then the PRCR must obtain prior written approval from NJDEP.

However, prior NJDEP approval is NOT required if alternative fill from an off-site source is imported to a site as long as the alternative fill meets the following requirements set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.2(b), in that the alternative fill:

  1. Does not contain any contaminants not already present at the receiving area of concern (“AOC”) above the applicable soil remediation standard (“SRS”);
  2. Does not contain a concentration of any individual contaminant above the 75th percentile of that contaminant’s concentration in the receiving AOC; and
  3. Is not imported in excess of the volume necessary to restore the pre-remediation topography and elevation of the receiving AOC.

With respect to using alternative fill from an on-site source (i.e., moving contaminated material from one part of a site to another), prior NJDEP approval IS NOT required if the concentrations in the alternative fill are already present in concentrations above the applicable SRS at the receiving AOC. If the contaminants in the alternative fill are not above the SRS in the receiving AOC, then prior NJDEP approval IS required before using the on-site alternative fill.

In response to comments, NJDEP believes the potential to delay remediation is justified by preventing further contamination of sites through inappropriate use of alternative fill and associated additional costs (i.e., for its removal and possible penalties) for such inappropriate use. The NJDEP stated that “the person should communicate with the Department early in the remedial process so that the person does not expend significant time, resources, and capital without knowing whether the Department will approve the proposal” (Response to Comment 254; 50 N.J.R. 1754).

The NJDEP is not sympathetic to comments that the proposal is unduly restrictive. The NJDEP emphasized the “use of alternative fill is for the purposes of remediating a contaminated site, not for the development of that contaminated site.”

Definition of “Person”

The amended ARRCS rules now place responsible corporate officers squarely within the realm of enforcement liability, even under statutes which do not place them within the target of such liability. Given the specter of personal liability for certain corporate officers, they will need to be even more vigilant in ensuring their company’s compliance with environmental rules governing site remediation.

Specifically, the definition of “person” was broadened to include for the purpose of enforcement, “a responsible corporate official, which includes a managing member of a limited liability company or a general partner of a partnership” (N.J.A.C. 7:26C-1.3). Numerous comments to the rule proposal emphasized that New Jersey’s Spill Compensation and Control Act, and other similar environmental statutes do not include corporate officials or shareholders within the definition of “person.” One commenter noted well-established corporate law distinguishes between human beings acting in a personal capacity as distinguished when acting as a representative or agent of a corporate entity.

In response to the many comments it received to the amended definition, NJDEP argues its expanded definition of “person” is consistent with statutory language (including the Water Pollution Control Act, Solid Waste Management Act and Spill Act) and that there is a “need for a systematic and consistent approach to the detoxification” of contaminated sites in New Jersey (Response to Comment 255; 50 N.J.R. 1754). The Department further notes that the protections granted to individuals by the corporate form are not absolute.

For more information regarding the NJDEP’s amended site remediation regulations, please contact your CSG attorneys or the post’s authors.

In a recent decision, U.S. Masters Residential Property (USA) Fund v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection – Financial Services Element, the New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division held that a claimant could not recover from the Spill Fund where contamination on the claimant’s properties was the result of historic fill and defuse anthropogenic pollution (“DAP”), not oil. The claimant owned several contiguous residential properties in Bayonne not far from Upper New York Bay and the Hudson River. During Hurricane Sandy, the properties and the surrounding area were flooded and inaccessible for days. When the floodwaters receded, claimant found staining from what it believed to be petroleum and/or hazardous substances on the interiors and exteriors of its buildings, and detected a petroleum odor emanating from the properties’ yards. Claimant claimed the floodwaters had carried petroleum or other hazardous substances from an offsite source onto its properties.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) disagreed. Soil samples from the properties revealed contamination from historic fill, not oil. Historic fill is contaminant-bearing material used to fill in low lying areas, usually consisting of coal, wood ash, dirt, and the like. Strictly speaking, contaminants found in historic fill are “hazardous substances” under the Spill Act. Further, the regulatory definition of historic fill describes what the “fill” is, but does not state when the fill must be deposited to qualify as “historic.” NJDEP construed the term “historic fill” to mean fill deposited before the Spill Act, or pre-1977. In accordance with its interpretation, NJDEP denied the claim while reserving its right to deny the claim on any other appropriate basis. The claimant sought arbitration.

At the arbitration hearing, NJDEP’s expert in analytical chemistry testified that the soil samples taken from the properties lacked tell-tale signs of oil contamination, chemicals called “aliphatics.” The soil samples also contained arsenic and lead, chemicals not commonly found in oil. NJDEP’s expert ultimately concluded that the soil sample results were indicative of historic fill and DAP, not oil. DAP consists of air pollution particles that fall onto the ground or water and accumulate over time. NJDEP, whose definition of DAP contains no time component, treated the finding of DAP as a per se sign of a pre-Spill Act discharge.

The claimant’s expert described a “petroleum odor” and “bathtub ring” he found at the properties, but offered no opinion regarding the missing aliphatics. The claimant’s expert also relied on news reports indicating that oil had been discharged in the general area of the properties in the course of the storm. Based on the analytical results, the arbitration judge found that Hurricane Sandy had stirred up DAP in local waterways and deposited the same on the properties. Accordingly, the arbitration judge denied the claim.

The Appellate Division affirmed the arbitration judge’s decision. The burden of proof was on the claimant to prove a post-Spill Act discharge, and the claimant had simply failed to make its case. The missing aliphatics, the inability of claimant’s expert to opine on the soil results, and the claimant’s failure to show that Hurricane Sandy had placed oil, not just in the area of, but specifically on the properties, all persuaded the Appellate Division that the arbitration judge’s denial was proper.

A lesson here is, when bringing a Spill Fund claim, claimants should have a good handle on their analytical results, and be sure that their contamination is from a spill, not fill. This is because, apparently, NJDEP has concluded that historic fill and DAP are per se pre-Spill Act discharges for which the Spill Fund is not liable. This is an intriguing position on several grounds. First, neither the definition of historic fill nor DAP have time components. Thus, the Department is taking an implicit leap that, if historic fill and DAP are found, they must be pre-Spill Act historic fill and DAP. Factually, this could be disputed, as, for example, coal, wood ash, dirt, and the like, could very well have been deposited after 1977. Second, NJDEP’s interpretation appears to be a rule of general applicability and continuing effect, meaning that the interpretation should have been promulgated through New Jersey’s rulemaking process. Finally, estoppel theories may apply as well. On the one hand, persons responsible for conducting the remediation are required to address historic fill, and according to NJDEP, should address DAP at their sites. On the other hand, NJDEP is indicating that the Spill Fund is not liable to pay claims for the very same kind of contamination. This asymmetry of treatment may open NJDEP’s interpretation to challenge. So another lesson is, if claimants must bring a Spill Act claim for historic fill and DAP, their claims may not be barred as a matter of law.

On Monday, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a Compliance Advisory Update announcing the implementation of streamlined changes to the Hazardous Waste Manifest submission process.  Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, beginning on June 30, 2018, EPA will launch a new e-Manifest system nationwide, allowing Hazardous Waste Manifests to be created and submitted via the EPA website. Consequently, EPA will no longer be accepting paper manifests and paper manifests submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will not be forwarded to EPA.

Among those most impacted will be treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (“TSDs”) which receive and report hazardous waste to EPA. The e-Manifest system will not be required for very small quantity generators (“VSQGs”), medical waste generators, used oil generators, universal waste generators, and others who are not required to have an EPA ID nor use the uniform hazardous waste manifest (EPA Form 8700-22).

To avoid confusion over compliance as the new e-Manifest system launches, EPA will phase in the rule based 30 day deadline such that all manifests expected to be delivered to EPA between June 30 and September 1, 2018 may be submitted to EPA as late as September 30, 2018.  More information on the e-Manifest system is available via the EPA website.

 

The next time a government inspector comes to a business and inspects its dumpster, do not be surprised if the resulting legal problem involves both environmental and consumer fraud actions. During the last few years, a number of national corporations have found themselves in legal trouble because the inspector found both hazardous waste and customer records containing personal information in a dumpster. If the business is in New Jersey that means it will be dealing with both the Department of Environmental Protection and the Division of Consumer Affairs’ Office of Consumer Protection. Needless to say, it is a situation to avoid.

Many items routinely handled by a business, including retail businesses, become a hazardous waste when disposed. These may include returned or excess inventory consumer products as well as cleaning and building maintenance products used at the business. Determining if they become hazardous waste when disposed often requires analysis not readily available at the disposing facility. Failure to know if disposed material is a hazardous waste can lead to substantial fines and even criminal prosecutions if it is improperly disposed. Any business should have a plan for determining if the materials disposed are hazardous waste subject to regulation and, if so, to ensure that the hazardous waste is handled and disposed of legally.

Many businesses are aware of the hazardous waste issues referenced above. Fewer are aware of this obligation imposed by New Jersey law with regard to disposal of customer information. “A business or public entity shall destroy, or arrange for destruction of, a customer’s records within its custody or control containing personal information, which is no longer to be retained by the business or public entity, by shredding, erasing, or otherwise modifying the personal information in those records to make it unreadable, undecipherable or nonreconstructable through generally means.” New Jersey is not alone in regulating the disposal of customer records. In states with such laws or regulations, any business having such records should also have a plan for their legal disposal. In New Jersey, the amount of actual damage to a consumer is automatically tripled, the consumer is automatically awarded attorney fees and costs and fines may be imposed up to $10,000 for a first violation and up to $20,000 for each subsequent violation. In some states, each disposed customer record is a separate violation.

The recent cases against national companies are likely only a prelude to similar actions against state or local business. When the inspector comes, those business should know that what is in their dumpsters does not include hazardous waste or discarded customer records containing personal information.

Can groundwater discharges violate the Clean Water Act and require NPDES permits?  Two federal court cases coming out of the 4th and 9th Circuits dealing with the applicability of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to groundwater are creating real concern over how expansive the court’s holdings and application of the Act can be.  The decisions were rendered by US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP and the 9th Circuit in Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui.

In each case, the courts held that groundwater can be regulated under the CWA when it acts as a conduit through which pollutants from a spill of hazardous substances, septic waste or injection can be traced to protected surface waters.  While the burden of proof is significant, if a nexus can be established between the contaminant detected in the surface water and groundwater where the release originally occurred, then exposure to CWA fines is real and the need for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit appears to be required.  The 4th Circuit’s holding is even broader than the 9th Circuit in that it applies to residual or historic contamination.  In other words, if released contamination ever reaches surface water protected by the CWA, then it doesn’t matter when the spill contaminants were first released to the environment.

In the 9th Circuit case, the County of Maui has already informed the court that it will seek Supreme Court review and for good reason.  If upheld, these rulings have far reaching implications for not only regulated industries, such as oil and gas, but also private home owners with septic systems and municipalities with leaking sewer pipes.  Here in NJ, where there is a robust state regulatory program requiring remediation of discharges to the environment, CWA regulation will add another regulatory scheme to be considered and may end up regulating septic tanks, which are common in New Jersey, and other systems designed to release materials below ground level.  Releases, both recent, as well as historic, could create a set of liabilities no private citizen even remotely considered.   Moreover, these decisions could cause the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to require re-investigation and re-assessment of sites that have been remediated pursuant to state law to determine if a previously unaddressed contaminant pathway between groundwater and surface water exists.

It remains to be seen how EPA will integrate these decisions, if they stand, into practice.  Once it does, the question will become how state delegated clean water programs will be affected.

In a recent unreported opinion, the Appellate Division affirmed a trial court’s decision imposing Spill Act liability on the sole shareholder of a dry cleaning business. (Morris Plains Holding VF, LLC v. Milano French Cleaners, Inc., Dkt. No. A-0604-16T1.) The case serves as a reminder that shareholder status does not protect individuals who are otherwise liable for contamination pursuant to the Spill Act.

The trial judge found that Milano French Cleaners operated for 25 years in a strip mall owned by the plaintiff. PCE was detected in the soil in 1999. After approximately 10 years of remediation the business went bankrupt. The landowner then assumed responsibility for the remediation and filed the subject action against the bankrupt corporation and its sole shareholder. The trial judge held both the sole shareholder and the corporation jointly liable for all remediation costs.

On appeal, the shareholder argued that imposing Spill Act liability on him improperly pierced the corporate veil. The Appellate Division disagreed, relying on NJDEP v. Dimant, 212 N.J. 153 (2002). As set forth in Dimant, to recover damages under the Spill Act, a plaintiff must establish a “reasonable nexus” between the discharge and the environmental damage, and a “reasonable link between the discharge, the putative discharger, and the contamination at the specifically damaged site.” Relying on the trial courts factual determinations, the appellate panel found a “reasonable nexus” because PCE contamination was found directly below dry cleaning machines with no other credible source in the area. In addition, the shareholder operated the dry cleaning equipment, was responsible for overseeing and handling the PCE used, and was responsible for ensuring legal and regulatory compliance of the corporation. Taken together, the record satisfied Dimant’s reasonable nexus standard and established individual liability.

Liability protection is clearly available to shareholders of close corporations in Spill Act actions. As recently as 2016 the appellate division remanded a decision imposing personal liability on shareholders for failure to conduct the fact intensive analysis necessary to pierce the corporate veil. See NJDEP v. Navillus Group, App. Div. Dkt. No. A-4726-13T3 (Jan. 14, 2016). However, in this case, given the nexus between the individual shareholder and the contamination, the appellate division refused to allow shareholder status to be used as a shield to individual liability. Rather, liability arose from a “reasonable link” between the discharger and the contamination, without regard for shareholder status.