Opinion ID: 2296314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Containment On-line Purge Exhaust System

Text: The Town argues that there was insufficient evidence to support DES's decision to grant a 100% exemption for the containment on-line purge exhaust system. DES found that [t]he sole purpose of the Containment On-Line Purge Exhaust System is to reduce or eliminate (treat) the airborne radioactive materials (pollution) from an exhaust stream (air) prior to release to the environment. DES accordingly ruled that the system is entitled to a 100% exemption. The Town argues that the purge system serves a dual function of maintaining adequate air circulation and temperature changes and of providing some pollution control. According to the Town, DES should have granted an exemption only for that portion of the purge system that is designed to filter radioactive particles from the air. To support its contention, the Town submitted a report authored by George Sansoucy, a consulting engineer who is, among other things, an expert in valuation of nuclear power plants. That report concluded that [s]ome portion of this system is generally pollution exempt up to the percent that is in excess of that which is required to maintain adequate normal air circulation and changes through the containment building as it would with any industrial building housing a nuclear reactor. NextEra claimed that 100% percent of the system is exempt. It stated that [t]he Air Pollution Control Function of the Containment On-Line Purge Exhaust System is to control and reduce potentially contaminated air released from the Containment Structure. It explained that [t]his is accomplished by filtering the Containment Structure exhaust air prior to its release through the Plant Vent Stack. It also provided supporting citations to documents available at the Plant and a schematic drawing of the exhaust system. The essence of the Town's argument here is that DES should have resolved the conflicting evidence in its favor and found that only a portion of the system operates to control pollution. However, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence, see Appeal of Town of Bethlehem, 154 N.H. at 322, 911 A.2d 1, and DES had ample evidence to support its conclusion. Accordingly, we find no error in this finding.