Court Opinion

ID: 9685976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:12:08.296307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:12.215485
License: Public Domain

Blair Moody, Jr., J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur with the analysis and result that the Consumers Power Palisades Plant water pollution control facilities are real property and, therefore, are ineligible for tax exemption under the Water Exemption Act, MCL 323.351 et seq.; MSA 7.793(51) et seq. I dissent from the analysis and result that the facilities of the Palisades Plant constitute air pollution control facilities covered by the Legislature in the Air Pollution Act, MCL 336.11 et seq.; MSA 14.58(1) et seq. Because the Legislature did not clearly intend to include facilities such as those employed by the Palisades Plant within the ambit of the Air Pollution Act, the Palisades Plant does not qualify for a tax exemption under the Air Exemption Act, MCL 336.1 et seq.; MSA 7.793(1) et seq.
Introduction
Since this matter involves principles of statutory construction, it is initially necessary to set forth certain relevant statutory provisions in question and the legal standards that are applicable in construing such provisions.
Section 2 of the Air Pollution Act defines the term "air pollution” as follows:
" 'Air pollution’ means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of air contaminants in quantities, of characteristics and under conditions and circumstances and of a duration which are or can become injurious to human health or welfare, to animal life, to plant life or to property, or which interferes with the enjoyment of life and property in this state and excludes all aspects *599of employer-employee relationships as to health and safety hazards.” MCL 336.12(c); MSA 14.58(2)(c).
The act creates an Air Pollution Control Commission, within the Department of Public Health, to administer and carry out the provisions of the act.
"Piggy-backed” on the Air Pollution Act is the Air Exemption Act. This act provides for a tax exemption1 if the following conditions are met:
"If the director of public health finds that the facility is designed and operated primarily for the control, capture and removal of pollutants from the air, and is suitable, reasonably adequate and meets the intent and purposes of the air pollution act, Act No. 348 of the Public Acts of 1965, as amended, being sections 336.11 to 336.36 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, and rules promulgated thereunder, he shall so notify the state tax commission who shall issue a certificate.” MCL 336.3; MSA 7.793(3).
For purposes of the act, a "facility” is defined in pertinent part as:
"[Machinery, equipment, structures, or any part or accessories thereof, installed or acquired for the primary purpose of controlling or disposing of air pollution which if released would render the air harmful or *600inimical to the public health or to property within this state.” MCL 336.1; MSA 7.793(1).
Within this statutory milieu, this Court has long-established certain principles of legal construction which are applicable in cases involving tax exemptions. In a very early case, this Court announced the rule that a tax exemption is not to be assumed in any case unless the statutory language would allow no other construction. The East Saginaw Mfg Co v East Saginaw, 19 Mich 259 (1869). Historically, this Court has rigidly adhered to this "strict” construction of tax exemption statutes. More recently, this Court rephrased and reiterated the rule as follows:
" 'An intention on the part of the legislature to grant an exemption from the taxing power of the State will never be implied from language which will admit of any other reasonable construction. Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used, for it is a well-settled principle that, when a specific privilege or exemption is claimed under a statute, charter or act of incorporation, it is to be construed strictly against the property owner and in favor of the public. This principle applies with peculiar force to a claim of exemption from taxation. Exemptions are never presumed, the burden is on a claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption, and an alleged grant of exemption will be strictly construed and cannot be made out by inference or implication but must be beyond reasonable doubt.’ ” Detroit v Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich 142, 148-149; 33 NW2d 737 (1948).
Discussion
The issue in this case is clearly drawn, i.e., whether the Palisades Plant nuclear facilities *601meet the following three-pronged test to qualify for a tax exemption under the Air Exemption Act: 1) the facility is designed and operated primarily for the control, capture and removal of pollutants from the air; 2) the facility is suitable and reasonably adequate for the control, capture and removal of pollutants from the air; 3) the facility is one which the Legislature intended to be covered under the Air Pollution Act.
The discussion which follows will focus on the third element of the three-pronged test. Without conceding that defendant Consumers has met its burden under the first two prongs of the test to qualify for a tax exemption,2 discussion of that *602question becomes unnecessary. Because the Legislature in enacting the Air Pollution Act did not clearly and unambiguously express the intention that nuclear power facilities should be covered by the act, defendant Consumers has failed to satisfy the third essential element to qualify for a tax exemption under the Air Exemption Act.
I
A careful examination of the Air Pollution Act demonstrates that the Legislature has given a very broad general definition to the term air pollution. What is or is not air pollution for purposes of the act is unclear. Whether the Legislature intended that radiation or radioactive emissions be included in the category of effluvia that constitute air pollution is not clearly spelled out.
What does become evident from examining the act is that the Legislature left up to the Air Pollution Control Commission the duty of administering the act and setting up rules and regulations for compliance with the act. Section 7 of the act enunciates in mandatory terms the rule-making duties of the Air Pollution Control Commission:
"(2) The commission shall promulgate rules in accordance with and subject to Act No. 306 of the Public *603Acts of 1969, as amended, being sections 24.201 to 24.315 of the Compiled Laws of 1948 for purposes of:
"(a) Controlling or prohibiting air pollution.
"(b) Complying with the federal clean air act, being 42 U.S.C., section 1857 et sequence [sic], as amended.
"(c) Controlling any mode of transportation which is capable of causing or contributing to air pollution.
"(d) Reviewing proposed locations of stationary emission sources.
"(e) Reviewing modifications of existing emission sources.
"(f) Prohibiting locations or modifications of emission sources which impair the state’s ability to meet federal ambient air standards.
"(g) Establishing suitable emission standards consistent with ambient air quality standards established by the federal government and factors, including but not limited to, conditions of the terrain, wind velocities and directions, land usage of the region and the anticipated characteristics and quantities of potential air pollution sources. This act does not prohibit the commission from denying or revoking a permit to operate a control facility that would adversely affect human health or other conditions important to the life of the community.” (Emphasis added.) MCL 336.17(2); MSA 14.58(7X2).
The Air Pollution Control Commission has complied with its statutory mandate. The commission has established extensive regulations regarding emission standards, air quality standards, fuel burning equipment and air cleaning devices. The commission has also established procedures for the collection of surveillance fees3 and for the filing of *604annual reports by commercial, industrial or governmental sources of emission of air contaminants.4 In addition, the commission has compiled a "register of materials”, which consists of chemical or particulate contaminants which if found in sufficient quantities in the ambient air can endanger the health and safety of the populace. The register includes the following:
"Group W
Asbestos
Benzo-a-pyrene
Beryllium or its compounds
Bromine
Chlorine
Cyanides
Fluorides
Fluorine
Iodine
Lead or its compounds
Mercaptans
Mercury or its compounds
Pesticides
Sulfides, organic or inorganic
"Group X
Particulate (except those listed in Group W)
"Group Y
Sulfur dioxide
"Group Z
Oxides of Nitrogen
Carbon monoxide
Ammonia
Alcohols
*605Ethers
Esthers [sic]
Ketones
Halogenated hydrocarbons
Non-methane hydrocarbons”.
1975 AACS, table 5, p 7927.
What is significant both about the regulations and the register of materials is not so much what they include but what they do not include. Nowhere in the regulations is there any mention of nuclear power plants or nuclear power facilities. Correlatively, nowhere in the register of materials is there any mention of radiation or of alpha particles, beta particles or gamma rays, which constitute the emissions that may be released by a nuclear facility. It would stretch the bounds of logic to assume that the Legislature or the Air Pollution Control Commission by their silence intended to cover these facilities or materials under the Air Pollution Act.
It is contended by Consumers that the only reason for the silence or inaction on the part of the Legislature or Air Pollution Control Commission is that the whole field of regulation regarding radioactive materials and radiation hazards has been preempted by the Federal government. It is pointed out that as early as 1962, prior to the enactment of the Air Pollution Act in 1965, the Michigan Attorney General issued an opinion stating that the Federal government had preempted the field of regulation of radiation hazards. OAG, 1961-1962, No 4073, p 565 (October 31, 1962). Further, the Federal preemption of radiation and radiation hazards was judicially recognized in Northern States Power Co v Minnesota, 447 F2d 1143 (CA 8, 1971), aff'd without opinion, 405 US 1035 (1972).
*606Initially this contention could be answered with the assertion that since the Legislature may have been convinced of Federal preemption, it certainly had no intention to cover nuclear facilities by a vehicle such as the Air Pollution Act. However, Consumers’ contention must also fail for two other pertinent reasons.
First of all, even a cursory examination of the overall legislative schema that constitutes the Air Pollution Act vividly demonstrates that the Legislature intended to regulate in the field of air pollution. The whole act is regulatory in nature.
Without citing every provision of the act which is basically regulatory, it is important to note that the Legislature delegated important regulatory powers and authority to the Air Pollution Control Commission and also provided sanctions for violations of the act. Section 5 of the act enumerates many of the regulatory functions to be carried out by the commission and reads in part:
"The commission may:
"(a) Establish standards for ambient air quality and for emissions.
"(b) Issue permits for the construction and the operation of air pollution control facilities and source emissions and to require reports of the operation of the air pollution control facilities.
"(c) Compel the attendance of witnesses at proceedings of the commission upon reasonable notice.
"(d) Make findings of fact and determinations.
"(e) Make, modify or cancel orders which require, in accordance with the provisions of this act, the control of air pollution.
"(f) Institute in a court of competent jurisdiction proceedings to compel compliance with the provisions of any rule or any determination or order which it may promulgate or issue under this act.
*607"(g) Do such other things as it may deem necessary, proper or desirable in order that it may enforce rules promulgated under this act.
"(h) Accept, or when deemed necessary by the commission require to be submitted to it, and consider for approval plans for air cleaning devices or any part thereof and inspect the installation for compliance with the plans.
"(i) Enter and inspect any property at reasonable times and places pursuant to reasonable notice for the purpose of investigating either an actual or suspected source of air pollution or ascertaining compliance or noncompliance with any rule which it may promulgate under this act. If in connection with such investigation or inspection, samples of air contaminants are taken for analysis, a duplicate of the analytical report shall be furnished promptly to the person who is suspected of causing such air pollution.” MCL 336.15; MSA 14.58(5).
Legislative sanctions are found in § 16:
"A person who or a governmental unit who fails to obtain or comply with a permit, or comply with a final order or order of determination of the commission made under this act is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $10,000.00 and in the discretion of the court an additional amount of not more than $2,000.00 per day a violation continues.” MCL 336.26; MSA 14.58(16).
It is difficult to conceive that the Legislature would establish such an extensive regulatory structure and then reward with a tax exemption a facility which has no obligation to comply with the regulations of the act.
Second, it is very misleading to say that the Legislature is completely preempted from regulating in the field of nuclear power or radiation *608control.5 It is true that in Northern States the court held that the Federal government has exclusive authority under the doctrine of preemption to regulate the construction and operation of nuclear power plants and this authority includes regulation of the levels of radioactive effluents discharged from the plant and precludes such regulation by’the states.6 Northern States, 1154. However, the court also made clear that the states are not totally precluded and can regulate for purposes other than protection from radiation hazards. Northern States, 1150.
The Court of Appeals in this jurisdiction in Marshall v Consumers Power Co, 65 Mich App 237; 237 NW2d 266 (1975), reached a similar conclusion. While recognizing Federal preemption, the Marshall Court noted that the state could regulate nonradiological hazards through its police power. The Court even suggested avenues by which the state could exercise its police powers over the nuclear power industry, e.g., local building codes, non-discriminatory zoning requirements, and abatement of common-law nuisances. Marshall, 251.
*609Several states, following the lead of the Northern States and Marshall decisions, have taken dramatic steps to regulate the nuclear power industry and even radiation hazards. The California Supreme Court in Northern California Ass’n to Preserve Bodega Head & Harbor, Inc v Public Utilities Comm, 61 Cal 2d 126; 390 P2d 200; 37 Cal Rptr 432 (1964), held that the states were not precluded by the doctrine of Federal preemption from questioning the safety of the location of atomic reactors.
The Vermont and Wisconsin Public Service Commission have taken even bolder steps. The Vermont agency was able to secure an agreement from a nuclear power company in which the company agreed to submit to the rules and regulations of the agency regarding radioactive emissions. Re Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co, 91 PUR3d 1 (Vermont Public Service Board, 1971). And in Wisconsin, the Public Service Commission has ruled that it has the authority in a certification proceeding to inquire into the design, safety and reliability of nuclear power plants. In re Wisconsin Electric Power Co, 5 CCH Atomic Energy L Reporter ¶ 16,631 (May 1, 1975). On two occasions the Wisconsin Commission has actually imposed safety design conditions on the construction of nuclear reactors. Joint Application of Wisconsin Public Service Corp, 52 Wis Pub Serv Comm 461 (1967); Application of Wisconsin Electric Power Co, 52 Wis Pub Serv Comm 501 (1967).
Further, the whole issue of Federal preemption may be moot in light of recent amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401 et seq. The 1977 amendments delegate to the Environmental Protection Agency authority over the control of radioactive pollutants:
*610"Not later than one year after August 7, 1977 (two years for radioactive pollutants) and after notice and opportunity for public hearing, the Administrator shall review all available relevant information and determine whether or not emissions of radioactive pollutants (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material), cadmium, arsenic and polycyclic organic matter into the ambient air will cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. If the Administrator makes an affirmative determination with respect to any such substance, he shall simultaneously with such determination include such substance in the list published under section 7408(a)(1) or 7412(b)(1)(A) of this title (in the case of a substance which, in the judgment of the Administrator, causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness), or shall include each category of stationary sources emitting such substance in significant amounts in the list published under section 7411(b)(1)(A) of this title, or take any combination of such actions.” 42 USC 7422(a).
The amendments also delegate to the states the authority to regulate any air pollutants as defined under the Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7416.7 It seems *611that with these two provisions the state is clearly not precluded from regulating radioactive emissions.8
Despite all this implied authority granted the state by the Northern States and Marshall decisions, the actions of other states, and the direct grant of authority under the Clean Air Act, the Legislature and the Air Pollution Control Commission have taken absolutely no action to regulate radiation and nuclear power plants under the Air *612Pollution Act. It can hardly be said that Consumers is entitled to a tax exemption under the Air Exemption Act when the Legislature has clearly declined to include Consumers facilities under the regulatory control of the Air Pollution Act. The intent and purposes of the Air Pollution Act do not encompass radiation hazards.
II
While the impression may have been given from the previous section of this opinion that the Legislature has done absolutely nothing regarding the regulation and control of radioactive emissions, such an impression is not entirely warranted. It is true that the Legislature has chosen not to include radiation under the regulatory umbrella of the Air Pollution Act. However, the Legislature has taken direct, positive steps to regulate radioactive emissions, but it has chosen a vehicle other than the Air Pollution Act.
In 1972 the Legislature enacted the radiation control act, MCL 325.451 et seq.; MSA 14.528(301) et seq. This act was later repealed and replaced by 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.13501 et seq.; MSA 14.15(13501) et seq. The new act did not make any substantive changes in the prior enactment, but merely codified the act under the Public Health Code.
The title to the original radiation control act is pertinent to the discussion:
"An act to provide for control of ionizing radiation emissions; to provide for certain contractual agreements with the federal government for the licensing of radioactive materials; to designate the department of public health as the state radiation control agency; to establish a radiation advisory committee; to adopt rules *613implementing this act; and to prescribe penalties for violations.” (Emphasis added.) 1972 PA 305.
It is clear from the very title of this act that this is the instrument the Legislature intended to use for the regulation and control of radioactive emissions. In addition, the Legislature set up a separate bureaucratic structure for the regulation of radioactive emissions with the department of public health designated as the state radiation control agency and with a radiation advisory committee.
It is also of critical importance to note what the Legislature sought to control among other things in enacting the legislation. Section 13506 of the 1978 act, formerly § 11, provides in pertinent part:
"Sections 13505 and 13515 to 13536 do not apply to the following sources or conditions, except as noted:
"(e) A production or utilization facility, as defined in the federal atomic energy act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 to 2281, or a source of ionizing radiation used in or in connection with the operation of a production or utilization facility pursuant to a license from the federal nuclear regulatory commission or successor thereto. However, the department may collect radiation data and perform environmental monitoring in connection with the operation of the facility in accordance with this part.
"(f) A source material, by-product material, or special nuclear material over which the federal nuclear regulatory commission or a successor thereto has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction under the federal atomic energy act of 1954, which jurisdiction has not been transferred to this state pursuant to an agreement under Act No. 54 of the Public Acts of 1965, being sections 3.801 and 3.802 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.” (Emphasis added.) MCL 333.13506(e), (f); MSA 14.15(13506)(e), (f).
Subsections (e) and (f) of § 13506 demonstrate an *614awareness on the part of the Legislature that the Federal government has preempted certain areas of the radiation regulatory field. But more importantly the subsections show that the Legislature provided a means, under the radiation control act, for the state to assume control over radioactive emissions should the Federal government cede such power to the state. And, finally, the Legislature took an active step in the field of radioactive emissions by providing for the collection of radiation data and the monitoring of utilization facilities. The Air Pollution Act is not involved.
There can be no doubt from a reading of the radiation control act that the Legislature intended this act, not the Air Pollution Act, to be the vehicle for the regulation of radioactive emissions in this state. Significantly, this act, unlike the Air Exemption Act, provides no tax exemption for compliance with the act. Nor is there mention made in the Air Exemption Act that a tax exemption will be given for compliance with the intent and purposes of the radiation control act.
Ill
Even if it could be said that the Air Pollution Act were applicable to nuclear power plant facilities, the very nature of the facilities present serious proof problems in determining whether the facilities qualify for a tax exemption. This is particularly true in light of the strict construction rule that is applicable in the tax exemption context. The chief problem is this: since nuclear facilities are not subject to the regulatory mechanics of the Air Pollution Act, how can the Director of Public Health or the State Tax Commission make an informed decision on whether the facilities are *615designed and operated primarily for the control, capture and removal of pollutants from the air; whether the facilities are suitable and reasonably adequate; and whether the facility is one which the Legislature intended to be covered under the Air Pollution Act?
The simplistic answer is that the Director of Public Health and the State Tax Commission must rely primarily on the statements and evidence presented by the party requesting the tax exemption. There are some inherent problems with this solution. The evidence supplied by the requesting party may be viewed as self-serving. Without any independent method of verification of the evidence, there is no reasonable basis upon which the Director of Public Health can make an objective and informed decision concerning whether the facilities adequately prevent the release of radioactive emissions into the air. Further, although it is not suggested that such is the case here, it has been alleged by one commentator that some utility companies are less than candid in supplying information regarding their nuclear facilities.9
It could be contended that the evidence supplied by a utility company must be fundamentally reliable, because, based upon this same evidence, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed the nuclear plant and determined that the facilities were environmentally sound and posed no threat to the public health and safety from radioactive emissions. This contention is equally suspicious.
Unlike the Air Pollution Act which has for its primary purpose the prevention of the emission of air pollutants, the Atomic Energy Act, 42 USC *6162011 et seq., from which the NRC derives its powers, has throughout most of its history had a bifurcated purpose: to promote the growth and expansion of the nuclear power industry and to insure that the public health and safety is protected. Such a dual administrative function is susceptible to inherent conflicts.10 As the decisions of the various Federal courts so dramatically reveal, in balancing the promotion of and the need for nuclear energy against the risk of environmental damage or damage to the public health and safety, the promotion factor almost always wins. Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee, Inc v Atomic Energy Comm, 146 US App DC 33; 449 F2d 1109 (1971); Union of Concerned Scientists v Atomic Energy Comm, 163 US App DC 64; 499 F2d 1069 (1974); Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc v Atomic Energy Comm, 533 F2d 1011 (CA 7, 1976).
As to the reliability of the NRC’s environmental evaluations in general, the courts and the commentators have been highly critical. Judge Skelly Wright took the Commission to task in the Calvert Cliffs decision, noting the lax environmental standards:
"The one thing the Commission has refused to do is take any independent action based upon the material in the environmental reports and 'detailed statements.’ Whatever environmental damage the reports and statements may reveal, the Commission will allow construction to proceed on the original plans. It will not even consider requiring alterations in those plans (beyond compliance with external standards which would be binding in any event), though the 'detailed statements’ must contain an analysis of possible alternatives and may suggest relatively inexpensive but highly beneficial *617changes. Moreover, the Commission has, as a blanket policy, refused to consider the possibility of temporarily halting construction in particular cases pending a full study of a facility’s environmental impact. It has also refused to weigh the pros and cons of 'backfitting’ for particular facilities (alteration of already constructed portions of the facilities in order to incorporate new technological developments designed to protect the environment). Thus reports and statements will be produced, but nothing will be done with them. Once again, the Commission seems to believe that the mere drafting and filing of papers is enough to satisfy NEPA [National Environmental Protection Act].” Calvert Cliffs, supra, 51; 449 F2d 1127.
Further, the commentators have adroitly pointed out that while the NRC continuously insists that the risk of a "nuclear catastrophe” with resultant damage of massive proportions both to the environment and the public is slim, there is no scientific or mathematical support for the NRC’s conclusion.11
In the midst of this confusing tableau, the decision of the Director of Public Health can only be based on conjecture. Under the strict construction rule for tax exemption statutes, conjecture can hardly form the basis for a decision to grant a tax exemption.
Conclusion
This Court has consistently held throughout its history that a party requesting a statutory tax exemption is subject to a high burden of proof in *618order to sustain its claim. This Court has said that a tax exemption will never be implied from statutory language which will admit of any other reasonable construction. If inference or implication are of no avail, then Consumers has failed to meet its burden and the tax exemption must be denied.
A review of the language of the Air Pollution Act shows no intent on the part of the Legislature to regulate the source of radioactive emissions. The act and the actions of the Air Pollution Control Commission are totally silent on the subject of radioactive emissions. Any implication from the broad, general language of the act that radioactive emissions were intended to be covered by the act is wholly unsupported and would be an insufficient basis upon which to suggest a tax exemption claim.
The Legislature has clearly and unambiguously indicated its intent to regulate sources of radioactive emissions, but this indication is found not in the Air Pollution Act but in the radiation control act. There is no clearer statement of legislative intent.
When dealing with crucial public policy considerations involving incentive tax exemptions, ostensibly to encourage construction and safe operation of nuclear plants in Michigan, the legislative pen must write with precision.
For all these reasons, it is held that Consumers has failed to meet its burden of proof for entitlement to a tax exemption. The exemption should be denied.

 Section 4 of the Air Exemption Act provides that a facility will be exempt from the following taxes:
"(1) For the period subsequent to the effective date of the certificate and continuing so long as the certificate is in force, a facility covered by the certificate is exempt from real and personal property taxes imposed under Act No. 206 of the Public Acts of 1893, as amended, being sections 211.1 to 211.157 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
"(2) Tangible personal property purchased and installed as a component part of the facility shall be exempt from:
"(a) Sales taxes imposed under Act No. 167 of the Public Acts of 1933, as amended, being sections 205.51 to 205.78 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
"(b) Use taxes imposed under Act No. 94 of the Public Acts of 1937, as amended, being sections 205.91 to 205.111 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.” MCL 336.4; MSA 7.793(4).

 Consumers makes a pointed argument that it meets the first two elements of the three-pronged test. As to the first element, Consumers argues that the containment building which houses the nuclear reactor at the power plant, the building’s spray system, the building’s cooling system and the plant’s gaseous radioactive waste (radwaste) system are all designed and operated "primarily” to prevent the release of effluvia into the air. According to this argument, because of the broad definition of the term "air pollution” in the Air Pollution Act, radiation or radioactive emissions would qualify as air contaminants under the act.
Plaintiff Covert Township, on the other hand, focuses its argument on the statutory term "primarily” as it is used in the Air Exemption Act. Covert argues that the "primarily” language connotes a subjective test, i.e., a party claiming a tax exemption must show that its subjective intent or purpose in installing the alleged air pollution control equipment was to actually control air pollution. Consumers’ primary purpose in installing the equipment was to meet the Federal guidelines and regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Since Consumers did not acquire and install the equipment for the primary purpose of controlling air pollution, it fails to meet the first element of the test.
There is some support for the Covert position. In the only prior decision in this jurisdiction construing the language of the Air Exemption Act, the Court of Appeals applied a subjective test. Meijer, Inc v State Tax Comm, 66 Mich App 280, 283; 238 NW2d 582 (1975). The Meijer Court opined:
"Whether something constitutes a facility within the meaning of the act thus depends on the primary reason for its acquisition and/or installation. The language does not focus on the functional characteristic of the object itself. The initial question is whether appellee acquired and installed the balers and compacters in order to prevent, control or abate air pollution. If so, was that the primary reason?”
As to the second element of the three-pronged test, Consumers *602argues and presented evidence before the Director of Public Health and the State Tax Commission that the facility is suitable and reasonably adequate for controlling air pollution. It is difficult to argue against this position, because there is no independent basis for review of the information which Consumers provided. Under the strict construction to be applied in tax exemption actions, it may be highly questionable whether Consumers has met its burden because there is no verification other than what may be viewed as Consumers’ self-serving statements that the facility adequately controls air pollution.

 Section 14a of the act requires the commission to levy annual surveillance fees and reads in pertinent part as follows:
"(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, in order to provide for increased surveillance, investigation and other activities necessary to provide greater protection of air of this state and for attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards, the commission shall levy an annual surveillance fee based on the commission’s estimate of the surveillance cost to the commission *604or a local agency as provided for in subsection (2) for each manufacturing or commercial location.” MCL 336.24a; MSA 14.58(14a).

 1975 AACS R 336.81, p 7926.

 For an extensive discussion of permissible state authority in the field of nuclear power regulation, see Murphy & La Piérre, Nuclear "Moratorium” Legislation in the States and the Supremacy Clause: A Case of Express Preemption, 76 Columbia L Rev 392 (1976); Bischoff, Note, Nuclear Power Regulation: Defining the Scope of State Authority, 18 Ariz L Rev 987 (1976).

 In reaching its decision that the Federal government had preempted the field of regulation of radiation hazards, the Northern States court relied on two primary considerations. The first is the following statutory provision from the Atomic Energy Act:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the authority of any State or local agency to regulate activities for purposes other than protection against radiation hazards. ” (Emphasis added.) 42 USC 2021(k).
Second, the court found the entire legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act compelled the conclusion that the Federal government intended to occupy the field exclusively.

 It is clear from the Conference Report on the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments that Congress wished to delegate control of radioactive pollutants to the Environmental Protection Agency and to the states:
"The conference agreement adopts the House provision which classifies radioactive substances (including, but not limited to, naturally occurring radioactive materials, accelerator produced isotopes, and source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act, as amended) as air pollutants. This brings them under the various provisions of the Clean Air Act and allows their regulation as criteria pollutants under ambient air quality standards, as hazardous air pollutants, or under new source performance standards, as appropriate. In the past there has been doubt about the authority for regulation of radioactive air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This provision makes it clear that the full regulatory framework of the act is available for radioactive pollutants.
*611"Under this provision, radioactive pollutants, including source material, special nuclear material and byproduct material are covered by Section 116 of the Clean Air Act. Thus, any State, or political subdivision thereof, may establish standards more stringent than Federal, or where a Federal standards [sic] has not been established, may establish any standards they deem appropriate. Thus the provision would not preempt States and localities from setting and enforcing stricter air pollution standards for radiation than the Federal standards, and would not follow the holding of Northern States Power Co v Minnesota, 447 F2d 1143 (CA 8, 1971), aff'd 405 US 1035 (1972), in the context of radioactive air pollution.” HR Rep No. 564, 95th
Cong, 1st Sess (1977), pp 142-143.
This quotation is not only enlightening regarding Congress’ position on the Federal preemption issue but it is also revealing regarding Congress’ and the various Federal agencies’ confusion over whether radiation or radioactive emissions should be classified as air pollutants. If the Federal agencies who had complete control over the field were unsure of their position on radiation, it is hardly any wonder that the Michigan Legislature or the Air Pollution Control Commission could know how to handle the issue of radiation hazards. This quotation further buttresses the position that the Air Pollution Control Commission’s actions in not including radiation in its register of materials was a conscious act, as that commission did not view radiation as an air pollutant under the Michigan act.

 A caveat is in order at this point. While the Clean Air Act appears to give jurisdiction to the Environmental Protection Agency and the states over radioactive substances and emissions, the extent of any authority is unknown. In enacting the Clean Air Act amendments, Congress did not choose to repeal the following subsection of the Atomic Energy Act, which subsection formed the basis for the Northern States court’s decision that the Federal government had preempted the field of regulation of radioactive emissions:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the authority of any State or local agency to regulate activities for purposes other than protection against radiation hazards.” 42 USC 2021(k).
If this subsection remains viable, as it appears to, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could still assert total jurisdiction over the area.

 See Coggins, The Environmentalist’s View of AEC’s "Judicial’’ Function: A Reply to Messrs Doub Et Al, 15 Atomic Energy L J 176 (1973).

 See generally Sax, The (Unhappy) Truth About NEPA, 26 Okla L Rev 239 (1973); Coggins, supra.

 See Yellin, Judicial Review and Nuclear Power: Assessing the Risks of Environmental Catastrophe, 45 Geo Wash L Rev 969 (1977); Comment, The Energy Crisis: "Reasonable Assurances” of Safety in the Regulation of Nuclear Power Facilities, 55 U Detroit J Urban L 371 (1978). But see Palfrey, Energy and the Environment: The Special Case of Nuclear Power, 74 Columbia L Rev 1375 (1974).