The presumption against administrative or civil liability set forth in NRS 445C.080 is rebutted to the extent it is established that: 1. The violation of an environmental requirement was committed willfully or with gross negligence by the regulated person; 2. The regulated person identified and disclosed the violation of an environmental requirement in an environmental audit after the commencement of: (a) An independent inspection or investigation of the regulated facility by a regulatory agency or other governmental entity; (b) An administrative proceeding against the regulated person for the violation; or (c) A civil or criminal action against the regulated person for the violation; 3. The violation resulted in serious actual harm or presented an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or the environment; 4. The environmental audit was conducted for a fraudulent purpose; 5. The regulated person obtained a significant economic benefit or advantage as a result of the violation; or 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. ion; or 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)
Nevada Legal Code