The presumption against administrative or civil liability set forth in NRS 445C.080 is rebutted to the extent it is established that:

1. 1. The violation of an environmental requirement was committed willfully or with gross negligence by the regulated person;

2. 2. The regulated person identified and disclosed the violation of an environmental requirement in an environmental audit after the commencement of:

   1. (a) An independent inspection or investigation of the regulated facility by a regulatory agency or other governmental entity;
   2. (b) An administrative proceeding against the regulated person for the violation; or
   3. (c) A civil or criminal action against the regulated person for the violation;
3. 3. The violation resulted in serious actual harm or presented an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or the environment;
4. 4. The environmental audit was conducted for a fraudulent purpose;
5. 5. The regulated person obtained a significant economic benefit or advantage as a result of the violation; or
6. 6. The regulated person conducted a previous environmental audit that disclosed the violation and he or she intentionally failed to report that violation to the appropriate regulatory agency.

(Added to NRS by 1997, 1077)