Could Connecticut require trade licenses for contractors working at a nuclear power plant?

Plain-English summary

In April 1999, Connecticut’s AG advised that the Department of Consumer Protection and its occupational trade boards could require licenses for contract personnel at nuclear power facilities when the work was of a kind otherwise subject to state licensure. Federal law gave the Nuclear Regulatory Commission broad authority over radiological safety and plant operations, but the AG found no express or implied preemption of the state’s ordinary craft-licensing requirements.

The opinion explained that occupational licenses tested competence and served consumer-protection and general safety purposes. The AG found no conflict between those requirements and federal nuclear rules, and no direct and substantial effect on plant operators’ radiological safety decisions. He also observed that Connecticut had enforced those requirements at nuclear plants and the federal regulator had not objected. The conclusion did not mean every specialized task required a state license; the opinion’s footnote said only tasks prescribed by statute or regulation did, with some specialized work exempt or covered by limited licenses.

Contractors and plant operators at the time

Working on a nuclear site did not by itself remove an otherwise applicable Connecticut trade-license requirement. The specific craft and applicable state licensing rule still mattered.

Licensing boards at the time

The AG treated enforcement of ordinary occupational licensing as within state jurisdiction, while acknowledging federal control over nuclear safety regulation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did a federal nuclear license exempt all contractors from Connecticut trade licenses?
A: No. The AG said state craft-licensing rules could still apply to covered tasks.

Q: Did every task at the plant require a state license?
A: No. The opinion said only work designated by state statute or regulation required one, with some exemptions or limited licenses.

Q: Could Connecticut use occupational licensing to set radiological safety levels?
A: The opinion addressed ordinary craft licensing and recognized federal control over nuclear safety decisions.

Background and statutory framework

The department asked whether federal law preempted its licensing of contractors at Connecticut nuclear facilities. The AG compared the Atomic Energy Act’s federal field with the separate purpose and effect of state occupational licensing under § 20-334(b).

Citations and references

Statute: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-334(b).

Case: English v. General Electric, 496 U.S. 72 (1990).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1999-formal-opinions/the-honorable-james-t-fleming-department-of-consumer-protection-1999004-formal-opinion-attorney-gene

Original opinion text

The Honorable James T. Fleming, Department of Consumer Protection, 1999-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

April 16, 1999

The Honorable James T. Fleming

Department of Consumer Protection

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Mr. Fleming:

You have asked whether the state, through the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) and the Occupational trade licensing boards within its jurisdiction, is preempted by federal law from imposing its licensing requirements for contract personnel working at a nuclear power plant facility in Connecticut. While the federal government exercises extensive jurisdiction over the safety operations of nuclear power facilities, that regulation does not oust the State from requiring such workers to be licensed where the tasks they perform would otherwise require an appropriate license from the DCP.

State law requires that DCP, through the occupational boards, license persons who practice certain crafts.1 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-334(b). The State's purposes for licensing these occupations are a hybrid of consumer protection and public safety interests. Consumers of these services are assured of a certain level of competency and safety, and unscrupulous practitioners of a craft are culled from the market. (Id. at § 20-334(c)) In short, the State, through its police powers, restricts certain occupations to licensed practitioners to prevent incompetent work from being performed and to preclude those who are unprincipled from having access to the market. Oppelt v. Mayo, 26 Conn. Supp. 329; 223 A.2d 47, 48 (Super. Ct. 1996).

Nuclear power plants are extensively regulated by the federal government under the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.2011 et seq. (AEA), chiefly through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). State regulation of operation and safety at such plants is generally preempted. Pacific Gas and Electric v. Energy Resources Comm'n., 461 U.S. 190,103 S.Ct. 1713, 75 L. Ed 2d 752 (1983).

Federal preemption of state law can be expressed or implied.

"[A] federal statute implicitly overrides state law either when the scope of a statute indicates that Congress intended federal law to occupy a field exclusively... or when state law is in actual conflict with federal law. [The United States Supreme Court has] found implied conflict preemption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements... or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." (citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted) Dowling v. Slotnick, 244 Conn. 781, 795, 712 A.2d 396, 405 (1998), citing Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287, 115 S. Ct. 1483, 131 L. Ed. 2d 385; Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 248, 104 S. Ct 615, 78 L.Ed. 443 (1984); Kenny v. Kenny, 226 Conn. 219, 224, 627 A. 2d 426 (1993), Times Mirror Co. v. Division of Public Utility Control, 192 Conn. 506, 510-11, 473 A. 2d 768 (1984).

There is no express preemption in federal law of a state's right to enforce its occupational licensing laws and, as the following discussion demonstrates, there is not any implied preemption either.

Despite the breadth of federal regulation of nuclear power plants, not every state law that may affect the operations at such plants is preempted. Referring to the federal preemption under the AEA, the United States Supreme Court stated, "for a state law to fall within the preempted zone, it must have some direct and substantial effect on the decisions made by those who build or operate nuclear facilities concerning radiological safety levels." English v. General Electric, 496 U.S. 72, 79, 110 S. Ct. 2270,110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990). Connecticut's scheme of occupational licensing has no effect on the NRC's requirements for building, repairing or operating a nuclear plant, and occupational licensing is a well-established State concern. There is a significant presumption against preemption in such cases. "There is a strong presumption against federal preemption of state and local legislation and this presumption is especially strong in areas traditionally occupied by the states." Dowling v. Slotnik, 244 Conn. 781, 796, 712 A.2d 396, 405(1998) (citing English v. General Electric supra.)

Connecticut's occupational licensing laws present no conflict with the AEA or regulations promulgated under it by the NRC. Cf. CNG v. DCP, 43 Conn. App. 196, 201-02, 682 A.2d 547, 550 (1996) (DCP licensing not inconsistent or conflicting with public utility regulation.) The State has always enforced its occupational licensing laws at Connecticut's nuclear power plants and the NRC has never found it to be a problem. Requiring occupational licenses is not an obstacle to the NRC's radiological and operational regulation. The NRC's Millstone Assessment Team staff apparently concur that the need to have State-licensed craft personnel does not implicate issues of federal regulatory concern but rather is a matter that falls within state jurisdiction.2

Since there is no expressed or implied preemption of Connecticut's occupational licensing laws, the DCP has jurisdiction to license personnel at a Connecticut nuclear power facility in accordance with the State's statutes and regulations.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Robert S. Golden, Jr.

Assistant Attorney General

RB:RSG:jks

1 Not every skilled task requires a license. Only those which are prescribed by regulation or statute require licenses. Some work which is highly specialized may be exempted or issued special limited licenses.

2 Letter from Wayne D. Lanning, Director of Millstone Assessment Team to Mr. Joseph H. Besade, May 15, 1996.