Opinion ID: 2296314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Circulating Water Discharge System

Text: 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.