Opinion ID: 2296314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factual Support for DES's Decision

Text: The Town next argues that [t]here was not proper, suitable or sufficient evidence or information for DES to decide NextEra's RSA 72:12-a Application. DES's findings of fact are presumed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable, see RSA 541:13; Appeal of Town of Bethlehem, 154 N.H. at 318, 911 A.2d 1, and this presumption may be overcome only upon a showing that there was no evidence from which DES could conclude as it did, see Legislative Utility Consumers' Council v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 118 N.H. 93, 99, 383 A.2d 89 (1978). We do not sit as a trier of fact in reviewing DES's findings; nor do we resolve conflicts in the evidence. See Appeal of Town of Bethlehem, 154 N.H. at 318, 322, 911 A.2d 1. Additionally, we are reluctant to substitute our judgment for the expertise of administrative officials. Appeal of Town of Hampton Falls, 126 N.H. at 814, 498 A.2d 304 (quotation omitted). However, if [DES's] ruling is devoid of findings of fact that would permit meaningful review, we will vacate and remand its decision for findings sufficient to permit such review. Appeal of Town of Newington, 149 N.H. at 354-55, 821 A.2d 1100. And, as stated above, we will overturn a DES decision if the appealing party shows by a clear preponderance of evidence that the decision was unjust or unreasonable. RSA 541:13; Appeal of Town of Rindge, 158 N.H. at 24, 959 A.2d 188. The Town first challenges NextEra's Application as a whole. Specifically, it argues that the information provided in the Application was not sufficient to support DES's decision because the Application contained only brief descriptions of each facility, with citations to documents not provided to DES and with over 150 pages of systems and costs with no explanation or support as to where those costs came from. We do not agree with this characterization of the Application. The documents cited in the Application were available to DES. NextEra stated that the documents were available for review at the Plant and neither party disputes this, and DES's investigation included review of ... information collected during a [visit to the Plant]. NextEra also told the Town that it could review the documents if it so desired; the Town apparently declined to do so. Furthermore, NextEra did provide cost data. The appendix to the Application contained an Asset Determination spreadsheet that provided the costs of the relevant assets, descriptions of the assets, the identity tags associated with the assets, and the systems or areas in which the assets are located. That those descriptions were brief and did not cite original supporting documents is of no consequence. As stated above, we will only overturn DES's findings where there is no evidence from which DES could conclude as it did. Here, NextEra provided a detailed and lengthy Application, and opened the doors of the Plant to both DES and the Town. Thus, we will not disturb DES's ruling based upon the Town's general challenge to the evidentiary support for NextEra's Application. The Town next advances several challenges to specific facilities. We address each claim in turn.
The Town argues that there was no evidentiary support for DES's decision to grant exemptions for buildings associated with the containment spray system, the containment cooling system, the boron recycle system, and the service water cooling tower. We need not address the containment spray system or the containment cooling system because we have already determined that they do not qualify for the exemption. With regard to the boron recycle system, the Application specifically explains why the buildings associated with that system are entitled to the exemption, provides a detailed schematic drawing of the system, and provides citations to supporting documents. As to the service water cooling tower, it doesn't appear that there are any buildings associated with the tower, aside from the tower itself. In any event, the Application specifically explains why the tower is entitled to the exemption, provides a detailed schematic drawing of the tower, and provides citations to supporting documents. Therefore, the Town has failed to demonstrate that DES's findings regarding the tower lacked evidentiary support. We accordingly uphold the decision to grant the exemption to the buildings associated with the boron recycle system and the service water cooling tower.
The Town argues that DES erred in granting a 16.73% exemption for the building floor space occupied by the primary auxiliary building filtered exhaust system because that system's floor space had previously been granted a 9% exemption and, according to the Town, there was no evidence to support an increase in the percentage allocation. We disagree. In 1984, DES's predecessor agency granted a 9% exemption for the primary auxiliary building because it determined that the primary auxiliary building exhaust system occupies 9% of that building's floor space. However, NextEra supported the increased percentage in its application by explaining that [t]he Primary Auxiliary Building has a total floor area of 43,325 sq. ft. of which 24,478 sq. ft. is occupied by equipment, and that the [c]omponents of the Primary Auxiliary Building Exhaust System occupy 4,094 sq. ft. The components of the primary auxiliary building filtered exhaust system (4,094 sq. ft.) make up 16.73% of the total floor space occupied by equipment (24,478 sq. ft.). From that, NextEra concluded that 16.73% of the building is entitled to the exemption. To support its claim, NextEra provided a schematic drawing of the system and cited various supporting documents available for review at the Plant. To explain the discrepancy between the original 9% exemption and the request for a 16.73% exemption, NextEra also explained that [w]hile no physical changes have been made to the Primary Auxiliary Building to account for the difference between the 9% building space percentage identified in the original Application and the 16.73% set forth in the 2010 Application, the drawings that were available for use at the time the original Application was prepared were still in design development (post-conceptual engineering layout) and did not reflect the final design that was used in the preparation of the 2010 Application.... [T]he difference... [resulted from] the evolving design of equipment placement and space utilization. DES ultimately ruled that the building is entitled to a 16.73% exemption, basing its decision on the explanation provided by NextEra. The decision complained of here was nothing more than a mathematical calculation based on that which DES determined to be the relevant amount of space occupied by the primary auxiliary building filtered exhaust system. The Town has failed to show that there was no evidence to support this factual determination. Accordingly, we uphold DES's decision to increase the exemption to 16.73%.
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.
The Town argues that there was insufficient evidence to support DES's decision to grant a 100% exemption for the circulating water discharge system. We disagree. The circulating water system draws cooling seawater from the Atlantic Ocean to absorb the heat associated with the condensing of steam exhausted from the Plant's turbine. After the cooling water mixes with the steam condensation, heated water remains. The circulating water discharge system then transports the heated water back to the ocean through a tunnel that discharges it 5,500 feet from the shoreline. DES found that the discharge system is designed and constructed to convey heated water to a point in the Atlantic Ocean where it can be discharged without polluting or otherwise damaging the Hampton Harbor marsh and estuarine system. In Appeal of Town of Hampton Falls, 126 N.H. at 814, 498 A.2d 304, in which we addressed the 1982 tax exemption application, we upheld an agency decision to grant a 100% exemption to this system. There, the then owner of the Plant claimed that it could have simply discharged the water into the Browns River, the river that feeds the Hampton Harbor marsh, which it asserted is incapable of receiving the physical quantity of water ... or the heat without environmental damage. Id. at 813, 498 A.2d 304 (quotation omitted). It therefore argued that the entire system is entitled to the exemption because it is intended to prevent the environmental damage that would be caused by discharging the water into the Browns River. Id. The Town of Hampton Falls first argued that the system is not a pollution control facility because it merely transports heated water to a point in the ocean where cooling will occur through dispersion in the ocean and thus it is the ocean, not the tunnel, that controls the pollution. Id. at 811, 498 A.2d 304. We disagreed. We first noted that the statute does not actually require the facility in question to remove pollution, but rather requires the facility to reduce, control, or eliminate pollution. Id. at 811, 498 A.2d 304. Then, we concluded that the discharge system does reduce and control thermal pollution because the transportation of the heated water to the ocean minimizes the effects of thermal discharge on the local estuarine system. Id. at 811-12, 498 A.2d 304. The Town of Hampton Falls also took issue with the claim about the volume of water, arguing that damage caused by a high volume of water could not be characterized as damage caused by a pollutant and thus the system is entitled only to an exemption to the extent that it reduces thermal pollution. Id. at 812-13, 498 A.2d 304. A high-level employee of the Plant testified that the function of transporting a large volume of water cannot be separated from the function of transporting heated water because without the heat, there would be no need to discharge the water. Id. at 813, 498 A.2d 304. The agency agreed that the functions could not be separated and ruled that the sole purpose of the system is to carry pollutants to a receiving body of water and discharge them in a manner that will minimize adverse environmental impacts. Id. at 814, 498 A.2d 304. On appeal, we examined the supporting evidence, and held that the agency's finding was supported by the record. Id. Here, NextEra has claimed the same exemption for the same reasons, and, with regard to the volume of water, the Town of Seabrook has responded in a nearly identical manner. Specifically, the Town asserts that if the water were to be discharged into the Browns River, it would overwhelm the surrounding marsh and beach area, as well as nearby roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Thus, the Town contends that the purpose of the discharge system is, at least to an extent, to maintain and preserve public infrastructure. According to the Town, this is not a pollution control purpose. This is just another way of saying that damage caused by the discharge of a high volume of water is not damage caused by a pollutant. To the contrary, NextEra provided ample evidence to support a 100% exemption. It explained that the discharge system was designed to treat thermal discharge by transporting the heated water beyond the Hampton Harbor area. Thus, again, we hold that DES did not err in ruling that the discharge system is a pollution control facility entitled to a 100% exemption.
The Town argues that DES erred in ruling that the circulating water intake tunnel is entitled to a 57% exemption. The intake tunnel is used primarily to draw cooling water from the ocean. However, it is periodically used as a discharge tunnel for purposes of biofouling control. NextEra claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required the tunnel to be 7,000 feet long because of environmental concerns associated with the periodic use of the tunnel for discharge. DES agreed, finding that if not for this period[ic] use, the tunnel could extend 3,000 feet into the ocean; due to U.S. EPA concern over thermal pollution when water is discharged, the tunnel must extend 7,000 feet. Thus, DES ruled that the extended portion of the tunnel is entitled to the exemptionthat is, the 4,000 feet that was added to address environmental concerns, or 57% of the total tunnel (4,000/7,000). The Town argues that we should overturn this decision because DES did not have before it any documents from the EPA addressing the extension of the intake tunnel. However, DES did have before it ample other evidence to support the exemption. NextEra specifically explained that the pollution control function of the circulating water intake tunnel is to control and reduce the effects of the thermal discharge by transporting the heated steam condenser cooling water beyond the estuarine system to the offshore point of discharge. NextEra also cited supporting documents available at the plant. Furthermore, the outcome here is consistent with our ruling concerning the circulating water discharge tunnel; when the intake tunnel discharges, it is exactly like the discharge tunnel and thus its length likewise minimizes thermal pollution. There is no reason to treat the systems differently when they operate in an identical manner. Accordingly, we uphold DES's decision to grant a 57% exemption to the circulating water intake tunnel.
The Town argues that the record does not support DES's decision to grant a 100% exemption for the Plant's storm water run-off and treatment system. We disagree. In Appeal of Town of Newington, 149 N.H. at 351, 821 A.2d 1100, we upheld a DES decision to grant a 100% exemption to a storm water management system. We noted that testimony in the record stated that the system was designed to minimize erosion, stabilize embankments, and control runoff, as well as to trap sediment to prevent silt-laden runoff water from entering sensitive environmental areas. Id. The Application here similarly asserts that the system is designed to prevent local flooding of the site area in a controlled manner to prevent erosion, and that [the system] is necessary to treat yard run-off to remove sediment before discharge from the site. The Application also provides a schematic drawing of the system and cites available supporting documents. Accordingly, DES's decision to grant an exemption to this system was amply supported by the record and we decline to overturn it.