A National Environmental/Energy
Workforce Assessment
ABSTRACT
Conducted by:
National Field Research Center, Inc.
P.O. Box 287
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL/ENERGY
WORKFORCE ASSESSMENT
NATIONAL ABSTRACT
Conducted By:
NATIONAL FIELD RESEARCH CENTER, INC.
Under 'Grant From
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Grant #T900591010
1977
This document has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
National
Field
Research
Center, Inc.
Box 287 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 351-8789
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The National Environmental/Energy Workforce
Assessment was conducted by National Field Research
Center, Inc. with main offices in Iowa City, Iowa.
The following personnel have had primary responsi-
bility for the Assessment and project report.
IOWA CITY, IOWA
Dr. Darold E. Albright, President
Paul E. Bridges, Executive Director
Dr. Richard L. Benesh, Project Director
Judith J. Gordon
Alan M. Stowell
Anita M. Stowell
Mary Kay (Edge) Wade
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Elizabeth G. Nielsen, Regional Director
Robert Oxberger
DENVER, COLORADO
Nancy C. Dillenberg, Regional Director
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Steven Silva, Regional Director
WASHINGTON", D.C. '
Frank E. Smith, Project Coordinator
Lloyd B. Chaisson, Assistant Project Coordinator
Jack F. Seum
Additional research and clerical assistance was
provided by Frederick M. Wall, Maxine Wolfe, Margaret
Fehn, Sandra Hogsed, Karen Kirchoff, Sharon Leiker,
Marilyn Low, Mary McCormac, and Joan Urquhart.
FIELD ATLANTA DENVER SEATTLE WASHINGTON 3 C.
OFFICES 2700 Cumwrland PVwv 2600 S. Parker Rd. 927 United Pacific Slag. !53 X Str«t. M.w
Suit* ISO SUKI ISO. No. 6 !OOO;naAv«. Suit* SOO
Atlanta. GA 30339 0»nv«r. CO 3O232 Seattle.'.VA 93101 '.'aimn«ton. D.C. 200C5
"S04I i33-28*4 1303) 7S1-*962 2O6! 623-9T'Q '20:!! 223.9126
-------
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
PREFACE vi
FOREWORD vii
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL/ENERGY
WORKFORCE ASSESSMENT 1
Introduction 2
POLLUTION CONTROL AND ABATEMENT PROGRAMS. . . 5
Air 6
Noise 7
Pesticides 8
Potable Water 9
Radiation .10
Solid Waste . . 11
Wastewater 12
Energy 13
STATE NEEDS 14
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 18
CONCLUSION 20
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL/ENERGY
WORKFORCE PROJECTIONS 1976-1982 24
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
-------
Page
WORKFORCE PROJECTIONS BY STATE
Air . 30
Noise 32
Pesticides 34
Potable Water 36
Radiation 38 TABLES
Solid Waste 40
Wastewater 42
Energy 44
Total Public Sector Workforce Projections 46
(Private) Wastewater-Certified Operators 48
(Private) Potable Water-Certified Operators 50
Total Public Sector Workforce Projections
by Environmental Category. 52
WORKFORCE PROJECTIONS BY REGION
Air 54
Noise 55
Pesticides 56
Potable Water ...... 57
Radiation 58
Solid Waste 59
Wastewater 60
Energy 61
Total Workforce Projections 62
Total Regional Workforce Projections
by Environmental Category 63
iv
-------
This brief statement of recognition cannot express
the value or gratitude owing to the agencies, groups
or individuals who not only participated in but made
Phase I of the National Environmental/Energy Work-
force Assessment a reality. In particular, mention
must be made of the invaluable assistance provided
by the headquarters and regional staff of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. No less important
were the effort and patience extended by state and
local officials. Corporate officials from business
and industry also offered significant, continuing
support throughout the project, support augmented by
the National Association of Manufacturers.
Persons within the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy's Office of Federal Activities worked closely
with the project staff to ensure its success. Fore-
most are Ms. Rebecca. Hanmer, Mr. J. Donald Cook,
Mr. Michael Moore, and Mr. John Ropes (formerly of
OFA).
Special thanks are also extended to those persons
in the Federal Regional Offices of EPA who greatly
assisted the project: Mr. Edgar Bernard and Ms. Elaine
Pickle, Region I; Mr. Robert Knox and Ms. Louise Drake,
Region II; Mr. George Dukes and Ms. Helen Nowak,
Region III; Mr. Robert Roth and Mr. Larry Hyde, Region
IV; Mr. Chester Shura and Mr. Joel Margolis, Region V;
Ms. Patricia Allbright, Region VI; Mr. John Coakley
and Mr. Steve Fishman, Region VII; Mr. Elmer Chenault,
Region VIII; Mr. Robert Mullinaux, Region IX; and Ms.
Helen Weitz, Region X.
ACKNOWL-
EDGEMENT
-------
Before reading the text of this abstract of the
National Environmental/Energy Workforce Assessment,
it should be understood that the commentary and rec-
ommendations herein represent the viewpoints of pro-
fessionals working in the disciplines encompassed by
this study. Further, this information was compiled
largely from personal interviews by research staff
working in each of the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and
I Ktl AUt enriched by extensive mailings and telephone conver-
sations. The value of the interview process cannot
be underestimated, because it allowed state agency
staffs to become more familiar with the project and
to provide greater amounts of meaningful information.
The following data should reflect a high degree
of reliability because of the generous involvement
. of state and local officials. And,"in the realm of
workforce projections, the "best professional judg-
ment" of practitioners from a national universe prob-
ably represents a reasonable picture of the situation.
This is not to say that this study eclipses all other
similar foregoing, ongoing or anticipated efforts,
but rather that thousands of hours of interviews com-
piled into state and regional reports certainly will
provide both a quantitive and a unique, qualitative
perspective to the reader. Its ultimate value will
be as a contribution to the information and knowledge
necessary to protecting and enhancing the quality of
our environment.
-------
In May of 1976, work was begun on this National
Environmental/Energy Workforce Assessment (NE/EWA).
The study was carried out for the Office of Federal
Activities of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency by National Field Research Center,
Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa. Information was compiled
through National Field Research Center's main office
in Iowa City and regional offices in Atlanta,
Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Seattle, Washington; and.
Washington, DC FOREWORD
Designed as Phase I of a three-phase program,
NE/EWA was carried out by utilizing extensive
on-site interviews in each of the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands. Considerable information was also obtained
from EPA federal personnel in each of the ten
regional offices and from EPA headquarters in
Washington, D.C. Telephone interviews and mail sur-
veys complemented on-site research.
As noted in the original NE/EWA proposal, proper
study and coordination can tie together solutions
to three seemingly unrelated problems: high rates
of unemployment; disparity between formal education
and practical work needs; and continued destruction
and pollution of the environment. This study was
undertaken to assess workforce needs in protecting
the environment and to sample educational offerings
available to fill these needs. Workforce levels and
workforce projections to 1982 were conducted for
the following pollution control and abatement areas:
air, noise, pesticides, potable water, radiation,
solid waste, wastewater, and energy.
VI 1
-------
The primary object!ve of the project was "to pro-
vide the United States Environmental Protection
Agency with the information necessary to formulation
of a rationale for initiating and supporting national
education and training programs in environmental/
energy fields." Information on pollution control
and abatement programs, current workforce profiles,
and projected workforce needs is deve-loped in indi-
vidual state and regional reports. This National
Abstract brings together much of the pertinent data
contained in those individual reports, but it cannot
take the place of the analysis and insights provided
in the other volumes.
vm
-------
NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENERGY
WORKFORCE
ASSESSMENT
-------
INTRO-
DUCTION
This study is an assessment of the workforce needs
for pollution control and abatement in the United
States for the five year period of 1976 through 1981.
The seven fields for pollution control and abatement
established under the Environmental Protection Act
(air, noise, pesticides, potable water, radiation,
solid waste, wastewater) were analyzed, together with
energy - related programs currently accentuated by the
national effort to solve energy supply problems.
The information presented here was gathered and
compiled through personal interviews with responsible
federal, state and local officials working in the
environmental field in every state. In addition,
there were personal interviews with officials of
representative private industrial and commercial
firms, as well as national industrial and trade
organizations. The interviews were followed up with
telephone calls and personal letters to supplement or
clarify the first information which was collected.
Any system of projecting workforce requirements is
obviously, subject to a wide margin of error, but we
believe that the system used here offers the best
possible^summation of employment requirements in the
field and will be useful in meeting urgent national
goals and responsibilities in the environmental/
energy sector. Phase II of this study will develop a
broad national inventory of the entire range of post-
secondary and higher education training offered in
these fields, and PH^QP m will offer demonstrations
for curriculum changes or modifications which appear
necessary to assure an adequate and properly trained
national environmental/energy workforce.
-------
A summary of workforce projections of this study
indicates no major new problems in workforce require-
ments, but primarily an accentuation of existing
problems in some fields and lessening of demands in
others. This information should be helpful in focus-
ing attention on continuing shortages of properly
trained personnel in some fields which have not as
yet received national attention. It will be helpful
to college educational administrators in forecasting
employment demands for graduatesas an initial
introduction to more specific information about ca-
reer training which will be enlarged upon in findings
of Phases II and III.
While few new or unique career fields are likely
to emerge during the period of our projection, there
are certain to be new combinations and realignments
of the use of existing skills. In light of the con-
tinuing budget limitations and restraints at all
levels of government, it is likely that there will be
stronger emphasis upon utilizing greater combinations
of skills and on improving the quality of available
training.
Engineers with special expertise in the environ-
ment and the relationship of environmental standards
to industrial production and general public policy
will continue to be the most sought-after employees
in the field. Engineers with specialized environ-
mental skills ar.e often in a position to pick and
choose job opportunities from a wide variety of open-
ings. These openings should expand by about 10 to 15
percent per year through 1982, although the greatest
growth will probably come in 1978 to 1979.
-------
Major expansion of career opportunities will come
in the following disciplines (in likely order of
demand): chemical, environmental systems, sanitary/
civil, environmental, mechanical, electrical, gener-
al, and nuclear. Physical and natural scientists
will be next in demand, as follows: chemists, physi-
cists, micro/macro biologists, aquatic biologists,
toxicologists, agronomists, plant patholpgists, bot-
anists, and agricultural engineers.
This summary of the most sought-after career spe-
cialists does not include a few of the more special-
ized openings for which only a handful are currently
being trained throughout the country. There will be
an increasing demand for health physicists, including
nuclear engineers and pathologists with medical or
veterinary degrees. Persons with this training
already appear to be unavailable for most federal and
state environmental agencies because of active demand
from private employers and research programs.
Regional differences in employment projections
reflect geographic conditions, types of industrial
development and, to some extent, the comparative
effort to enforce all types of environmental stan-
dards by state and local agencies. The regional
reports provided as part of this overall study deal
primarily with staffing projections for the ten
regional offices of the Environmental Protection
Agency, but they provide a good interpretation of the
working relationship of each of the regions with the
various states over which the regional office has
jurisdiction.
-------
POLLUTION CONTROL
and
ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
-------
State and federal regional staffs can expect a
growth rate of approximately five percent per annum
for professionals and technicians during the next
five years. Turnover has been high in the past,
but changing economic conditions and a surplus of
graduates (except for engineers)is reducing change.
Recent increases in state salary levels have also
contributed to a level ing off of turnover to approx-
imately five to ten percent per year. Even more
stringent limitations on federal training assis-
tance in the university system and the tuition pro-
gram for special training courses are likely to
further limit the availability of fully prepared
air pollution scientists.
Most state programs meet min.imum standards.
Indications that amendments to the Clean Air Act
will not require major changes in compliance sched-
ule requirements further indicate no special addi-
tions to workforce requirements.
-------
This EPA program generally involves the least
activity throughout the country. Workforce growth
will probably be limited to two to four percent, and
those added will probably be engineers or highly
trained technicians. There are some reports of pro-
posed new legislation, both state and federal, in
1978, which might change the projection.
Most current noise abatement programs have local
origin or emphasis. Both the Quiet Communities and
Each City Helps the Other (ECHO) offer the possibil - IMfllSF
ity of workforce requirements not projected here.
-------
The pssticlils workforce probiemis primari :y cur-
rent to 1P77, tiad to tha requirement of cartifica-
tion of operators by October, 1977. Estimates cur-
rent at the writing of this report indicate that
approximately seventy-five percent of the operators
in the fiald will be certified by that date.
Commercial applicators of pesticides will prob-
ably increase by an average of five percent annu-
ally, and private applicators will decrease, as the
more skilled application proves the most economical.
Integrated pesticide management is still a very lim-
ited field for professionals, although the outlook
should improve as skilled management demonstrates
efficiency and economy. Job opportunities will con-
tinue to be available in the applicator field
because of high turnover. This turnover will con-
tinue to result from the low pay, danger, and sea-
sonal nature of the work.
8
-------
The operator workforce will increase from ten to
twelve percent per annum, with a possibility of
higher rates in a few states where certification of
operators will become mandatory. Some states appear
likely never to establish mandatory certification,
and turnover will continue high because of rela-
tively low pay and lack- of professional status for
the operator.
Other than operators, engineers will be chief
among professionals hired, with a limited number of
geologists and hydrologists.
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 is also likely
to have a profound impact on the potable water work-
force. As states assume primacy, the workforce in
some states may increase by over fifty percent dur-
ing the next five years.
POTABLE
WATER
-------
During the five year projection period, antici-
pated growth in this field will be limited to two or
three percent. This outlook will sharply change in
the later 1980s, however, as a new crop of nuclear
power installations are brought on-line. As men-
tioned in the introduction, there is a shortage of
highly qualified specialists for whom most federal
and state agencies are precluded from bidding because
of pay scales. New plants and more rigid standards
D A QI ATI Q JVI could change the workforce picture, but the outlook
for the five years covered here involves relatively
minor change.
-------
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA) will have a significant effect on work-
force levels in this field, especially for engineers ,
geologists, and systems management experts. Work-
force totals will probably increase by ten percent
per year through 1979, and then the rate will grad-
ually decline. No projections have been made here
for major energy conversion activity, but discus-
sions in the late stages of this report indicate the
probability of unprojected requirements. SOLID
Solid waste collection activities will turn more
and more to the transfer station concept, and the
number of landfill operators will decline as the
number of landfills decrease as a result of the RCRA
requirements.
The states expect massive federal-assistance in
making these changes,including technical assistance
in developing solid waste management plans.
11
-------
Most of the projections for potable water apply
also to wastewater treatment. As professional
requirements are increased, professional plant
operators will be added at a rate of ten percent
per year, but turnover will continue high in the
overall field.
Continued upgrading of wastewater treatment
requirements will result in continuing.requirements
of more professional personnel and more upgrade and
IA/AST E WATER in-house training. Added requirements for more
intensive treatment are not as likely in the future,
as more local resistance develops to changes which
are believed to have questionable value to the
overall water quality picture, especially when they
add materially to local costs.
12
-------
Program activity in the monitoring of environ-
mentally related aspects of energy programs is cur-
rently relatively stable and is not expected to
expand greatly during the five year projection
period.
No detailed assessment could be made of the
effect of new energy programs currently being con-
sidered or put into effect, but it is obvious that
there will be sharp increases necessary in profes-
sional monitoring personnel as conversion to coal ENERGY
moves toward proposed goals and many more nuclear
plants are brought into operation.
Most states now have energy agencies established
first for fuel allocation. Staff personnel were not
originally recruited as professionals competent to
do environmental monitoring or develop state energy
plans. Considerable changes may be in the making,
as each state competes for adequate energy sources
for current and projected needs.
13
-------
STATE NEEDS
14
-------
During the course of this study, it was noted on
several occasions that there is a need for the fed-
eral government, through the EPA regional offices,.
to provide assistance to the states based on their
respective needs. Foremost among these needs is
more frequent and more specific job training con-
ducted in the states.
The states are also in need of more federal sup-
port in terms of financial resources and personnel.
Not all states are able to assume the complete finan-
cial obligation of operating programs following the
initial federal support. In addition, the hiring of
personnel for short-term or highly technical posi-
tions is often prohibitive.
Air protection programs represent one of the ear-
liest.and best-supported state environmental efforts.
California was an early leader in controlling motor
vehicle emissions; many northeastern industrial
states have made significant progress in reducing
stationary source emissions over the past ten years.
A matter certain to attract considerable attention
over the next five years is anti-degradation air
quality regulations; many less-industrialized and
western states are resisting these regulations as
they will limit development.
Most states have not made noise control a major
priority because of limited resources. Illinois,
California, and Delaware have comprehensive noise
programs and are among only a handful of states
with state-wide noise legislation. Other heavily-
populated states are likely to emphasize noise pro-
grams to a greater extent in the future, particularly
if federal support is available.
15
-------
The new pesticide legislation regarding appli-
cator certification has affected nearly all states
in the same manner. Development of training and
certification plans has consumed a great deal of
time recently as the October, 1977 deadline nears.
Many state officials expressed concern that the
same workforce which has been straining to meet
pesticides requirements will also be responsible
for portions of the new Toxic Substances Control
Act. Clearly there will need to be a great deal of
federal guidance in this regard.
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 is the most
comprehensive indication of state needs in the pot-
able water area. Most states are expanding their
workforces to attain primacy under the Act. How-
ever, other states, such as Oregon, have felt the
budgetary pressures of other environmental pro-
grams and are limiting their involvement in the
drinking water field.
Radiation has been under the control of a health
department in most states, but it is an area gaining
recognition as an environmental field. Illinois and
Pennsylvania are two of the first states with com-
prehensive radiation legislation, but other states
can be expected to follow their lead as radioactive
material use, transportation and disposal become
more common. Currently 25 states have reached "agree-
ment state" status with the Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission; the fact that more states are expected to
attain this status is a reflection of state interest
in the radiation field.
With passage of the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act of 1976, the federal government signaled
16
-------
the shift in solid waste management from disposal to
recycling. Most states are still attempting to deal
with solid waste disposal and feel that resource re-
covery will be prohibitively expensive or impracti-
cal because of sparse populations. Other attempts
at solid waste control include beverage container
deposit laws in Oregon and Vermont, and a unique
litter control law in Washington.
Wastewater and water pollution control have re-
ceived a great deal of financial and workforce sup-
port in most states in the past. As a result, water
quality in many rivers and lakes has improved dramat-
ically in recent years. However, most state offi-
cials feel that there is a need for an even greater
commitment in the area as non-point sources of pol-
lution are brought under control and operator certi-
fication is made mandatory. Regional and interstate
cooperation may lead to greater efficiency in han-
dling specific water pollution problems.
The energy activity in most states originated with
fuel allocation in 1974. Except for energy-producing
activity, most state programs are rather minimal and
there is an indication that states are awaiting en-
ergy developments at the federal level before expand-
ing their efforts. Coordination of energy needs and
conservation are two areas in which most states will
be involved.
17
-------
BUSINESS
and
INDUSTRY
18
-------
Employment of personnel for environmental work can
be expected to increase sharply during the next five
years, but it is impossible to quantify Forecasts be-
cause of the limited scope of direct interviews,
either on-site or by telephone. Problems relating to
the industrial workforce are detailed in the Business
and Industry Report of this study.
The completed surveys were numerous enough for the
electric utility and chemical industry to warrant
acceptance as a significant sampling of environmental
employment plans in the industry, although the sam-
pling is too limited for definitive projections.
Of the electric utilities interviewed, 58 percent
predicted an increase in employment ranging from 5 to
15 percent, while 42 percent predicted a growth of at
least 50 percent. Making full allowances for sam-
pling error, it is safe to predict major increases in
environmental personnel in these two industries.
Environmental personnel have yet to be categorized
or classified by any standardized procedure. More
accepted classifications can be expected as employ-
ment in the field grows and as career training in
institutions of higher education is adapted to fit
industry needs more closely.
A 2jcr industrial practice at present is to shift
personnel from other divisions into environmental
work. Another is to use outside consulting firms
(most often consulting engineers) to adapt production
to environmental standards. Both of these practices
make for difficulties in employment projections.
19
-------
CONCLUSION
20
-------
Most of the states and the EPA Regional Offices
have sufficient personnel to carry forward the EPA
pollution control and abatement programs with reason-
able competence and speed. The urgency with which
this task is carried forward varies among programs
and among states, and this study was not mandated to
measure the quality of performance.
An analysis of the projected workforce require-
ments, however, yields several indications that no
major effort for maximum enforcement can be expected
to be made. Other projections indicate that some
programs given special assistance or emphasis in the
past have not been pared as much as might be possible
under changing conditions. If over-generous staffing
by states continues in some areas after withdrawal of
federal support, it may be at the expense of other
highly essential programs.
No attempt has been made in this assessment to
measure the efficiency of organization to deal with envi-
ronmental programs of the various state structures.
A review of the various state reports should offer
some suggestions for consideration by state officials
concerned in this area.
Although most states have indicated realization of
the value of workforce assessments and an evaluation
of post - secondary and higher education programs to
meet these needs, only Illinois has carried out such
a study. EPA could well encourage similar state
efforts related to all three phases of this project.
A universal complaint from state agency officials
concerned with hiring entry-level personnel or up-
grading existing staff is the lack of "real world"
practicality in some of the training materials and
training directives which comes to them through EPA.
21
-------
Some of these complaints are obviously the inevitable
result of a local official being told, even by impli-
cation, that he/she is not meeting a high enough
standard, but others have real merit. When improved
standards are expected, to be achieved by upgrading
requirements for certification, for instance, detail-
ed explanations need to be made, sometimes in person.
EPA has no well-developed national training strat-
egies, except in a most indirect fashion which seems
to indicate that the marketplace (e.g., availability
of jobs) will generate training by state and private
educational systems. This .study, however, is a sup-
plement to that concept, in that it points out to
potential institutional users the projected work-
force demand. Later phases will enable a more in-
direct comparison of available facilities to meet
training requirements.
EPA regional manpower officials could have a much
stronger impact in improving the efficiency of state
agency personnel if each region could be funded for a
limited number of seminars and workshops to which
state workers could be invited without constraints of
state cost-sharing or other decisions about personnel
attending which might eliminate those with the great-
est "need to know". Some of these training sessions
could be better handled by the states themselves with
direct federal subsidy through the region.
One of the all too evident findings of this study,
although not directly part of the workforce assess-
ment, is the fact that too many state agencies do not
have the most useful working relationship with the
EPA regional office. This is partly an inevitable
22
-------
result of any situation where the federal agency is
of necessity the final arbiter of enforcement. It is
possible, however, to offset some of this conflict
through the use of the important advantages the re-
gional office holds as the source of money and essen-
tial technical assistance. The regional offices can
best use these considerable advantages of having per-
sonnel to put in the field to work with state agen-
cies, to fully understand the state's problems and
viewpoints, and to try to-make sure that the programs
which are funded will make for the most efficient
utilization of a state workforce, as well as meeting
an essential problem.
These general conclusions, all related to work-
force needs and workforce training programs, indicate
a number of shortcomings. The summary of defects,
however, should not obscure the fact that EPA has
provided the leadership in mounting a massive overall
program to protect and improve the quality of the
environment, and that state and local government,
together with the entire private sector of the econ-
omy, have put into effect most of the needed changes.
Both the carrot and the stick have had to be used
upon occasion in securing this assistance and will
have to be used again, but voluntary compliance has
been the cornerstone of the system.
A properly trained professional and technical
workforce is an essential part of the national envi-
ronmental effort . This workforce assessment indi-
cates that essential needs can be met without emer-
gency measures, but the. realization of these needs
cannot be overlooked.
23
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENERGY
WORKFORCE
PROJECTIONS
24
-------
WORKFORCE
PROJECTIONS
BY
STATE
25
-------
WORKFORCE PROJECTIONS BY STATE
Introduction
The diversity that is an essential component in the greatness
of our country is not limited to geography and climate. Diversity
is well evidenced among the state governments. Agencies' responsi-
bilities vary from state to state; within similar agencies, divi-
sional organization is often quite dissimilar. Differences are
compounded by priorities and resultant program emphasis unique to
each state, and furthered due to the individual state's fiscal
situation.
These differences affect the availability and nature of data
concerning the national environmental/energy workforce. The signif-
icance of the effects were realized early in the national assess-
ment. Researchers in the field made extensive attempts to obtain
data which were comparable from state to state. This was not always
possible.
.Variances in availability and form of data are detectable in the
following tables. In any set of composite tables, consistency and
comparability are of utmost importance. In order to achieve these
criteria, only the government component (state, county and local) of
the public sector is. represented in the composite national tables.
Notable exceptions are the tables for potable water and wastewater
certified treatment plant operators. Data of sufficient comparabil-
ity were available for these two areas of the private sector.
26
-------
Every state report contains significant information which could
not be adapted to the composite table format. The reader who desires
more complete detailed information (including data regarding the pri-
vate sector) is encouraged to refer to the appropriate state report.
-------
TABLE INFORMATION AND INTERPRETATION
The following comments will prove useful for accurate inter-
pretation of the data depicted in the tables.
Use of Asterisk (*):
- The asterisk (*) is used for instances in which
data consistent with the data base for the table
is not available.
- This assumption of "no change" allows for consis-
tency throughout the projections; however, it
should be noted that the resulting totals neces-
sarily represent a very conservative growth,
both in rate and actual increases over the five-
year period.
Rates of Increases:
Several states show substantial increases in one
or more pollution control and abatement areas.
Most frequently such increases are predicated
upon the assumption of primary responsibilities
for major federal legislation.
Many states which are depicted as in a no-growth
or small growth situation could witness dramatic
growth if primacy is assumed.
Several sources indicated that the data they pro-
vided were conservative and subject to consider-
able change. The most frequent explanation for
the inability to be more specific and accurate
was the uncertaincy at the state level as to
potential new federal legislation and interpreta-
tion and enforcement posture regarding extant
legislation.
-------
Certified Operators:
Not all operators are certified. The proportion of
certified operators in state operator workforces
varies considerably.
Many states have only voluntary certification
requirements. This does not necessarily mean that
their operator workforce is not well qualified;
however, it often means a smaller proportion of the
total are certified.
Severa.l state with voluntary certification antici-
pate instituting mandatory certification require-
ments in the next two or three years. Thus, the
number of certified operators could increase more
rapidly and to a greater total than indicated in
the tables.
Total Public Sector Workforce Projections by State:
This table does not include the state workforce in
, energy-related areas because data for the energy
field do not meet comparability and consistency
requirements. This is due to the degree in which
organization of the energy workforce varies from
that of the pollution control and abatement areas.
-------
AIR - Workforce Projections by State 1976-1982 (est.)
STATES
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS L
CALIFORNIA2
COLORADO1
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII L
IDAHO L
ILLINOIS1
INDIANA
IOWA1
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA1
MAINE1
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS1
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI1
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE1
NEW JERSEY1
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK1
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
1976
88
15
67
26
1 ,346
62
116
24
177
86
12
18
130
140
36
34
165
27
19
185
100
131
50
54
80
39
26
21
21
175
50
211
141
30
332
60
90
1977
94
16
75
26
1,440
63
116
25
194
82
12
25
132.
181 .
36
34
169
27
-19
185
100
131
52
56
83
39
26
23
21
183
51
276
141
30
340
61
95
1978
102
18
77
26
1,492
69
116
28
223
85
12:
28
136
181
36
32
184
19:
185
100
131
54
57
83
40
26
25
21
192
52
290
142
30
373
62
96
1979
110
19
79
30
1,538
75
116
29
244
86
12
30
139
183
38
33
199
^7
19
185
100
131
56
63.
' 83
41
26
27
21
201
53
305
144
32
378
63
97
1980
115
20
81
31
1,585
80
116
32
267
87 '
12
32
142
189
38
35
205
27
19
185
100
131
58
64
83
43
26
29
21
211
54
320
145
33
388
64
97
1981
120
20
34
31
1,633
84
116
33
290
87
12
33
144
191
40
38
207
27
19
185
112
136
60
65
83
44
26
29
21
221
55
333
146
33
397
55
97
-------
STATES 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
PENNSYLVANIA1
RHODE ISLAND1
SOUTH CAROLINA1
SOUTH DAKOTA1
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT1
VIRGINIA1
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA1
WISCONSIN
WYOMING1
D.C.
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
TOTAL.
224
15
65
8
150
525
28
16
117
93
59
76
14
19
28
10
5,831
232
22
65
6
150
533
29
16
122
96
66
82
14
19
36
10
6,157
259
24
69
6
150
541
32
16
127
96
75
82
14
19
38
10
6,408
276
27
69
6
150
549
34
16
131
96
82
82
14
19
40
10
6,613
306
29
73
6
150
558
36
16
136
'96
91
82
14
19
42
10
6,829
325
30
73
6
150
567
37
16
140
96
100
82
14
19
44
10
7,026
( For more information, refer to individual state report.
AIR - GENERAL STATEMENT
The entries in this table include data regarding state and local (county and/or municipal) programs, unless
otherwise indicated.
FOOTNOTES
.Entries include workforce projections at the state level only. Data regarding local programs were not available.
California has an extensive local program effort which is reflected in the table.
31
-------
NOISE - Workforce Projections by State 1976-1982 (est.)
STATES
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA1
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
2
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
T>«nr HM «
nu trviin
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA3
.NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO 4
OKLAHOMA
OREGON 5
T976
1
1
2
Q
5
3
2
6
2
4
10
0
18
1
4
6
2
0
2
1
7 '
6
2
Q
2
)
0
4
2
5
1
6
1
2
0
1
4
1977
1
1
2
0
5
3
2
7
2
4
10
0
18
2
4
6
2
0
2.
1 .
7
6
2
0
2
2
0
4
2
5.
1
3
0
2*
0
1
4
1978
1
3
2
0
6
3
2
9
4
4
10
0
18
2
4
a
8
0
2
1
7
6
6
0
2
?
0
4
2
12
1
7
Q
2*
0
1
5
1979
1
3
2
0
7
3
2
9
6
4
10
0
18
2
4
8
8
0
2
1
7
6
6
0
2
2
0 .
."' 4'
2
16
1
8
0
2*
0
2
6
1980
1
3
2
0
8
3
2
10
3
4
10
0
18
2
4
a
3
0
2
1.
7
6
6
0
2
2
Q
4
2
19
1
9
0
2*
0
2
7
1981
1
3
2
Q
10
3
2
10
11
. 15
10
0,
18
2
4-
8
8
0
2
1
7
6
6
0
2
2
0
4
2
23
1
9
0
2*
0
2
3
32
-------
STATES
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
1 ^ 1 W
1
2
1
0
Q
5
4
1
1
1
0
0
0
4
3 .
1
1
2
1
0
0*
5
4
1
1
1
Q
0
0
o
u
4
1
6
2
1
0
Q*
5
5
1
1
1
Q
0
0
12
4
1
9
2
1*
0
0*'
5
6
1
3
1
0
0
0
12
6
1
12
2
1*
0
0*
5
6
1
3
- 1
0
0
0
12
6
1
12
2
1*
0
0*
5
6
1
4
1
0
0
0
12
6
1
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN 6
WYOMING
D'.C.
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
TOTAL 139 I42. 183 2QI
(For more information, refer to individual state reports.)
NOISE - GENERAL STATEMENT
Many states have no noise-related legislation. Others have legislation or regulations relating to vehicles
only. Noise control activities in these states are minimal and often conducted in response to complaints and/or
in conjunction with federal legislation (OSHA). These functions are often dealt with by persons whose noise-
related responsibilities comprise a very small proportion of their time.
The entries in this table include state employees only. State Department of Transportation employees and
law enforcement officers are excluded.
FOOTNOTES
The entries represent only the staffing level of the California Office of Noise Control. They do not include
persons involved in the extensive local program efforts, nor do they include California State Highway Patrol
-personnel.
3 The entries do not include local program employees or university personnel under contractual agreements.
Nine Safety and Health Officers whose duties include minimal noise-related activities are excluded.
Some 30 to 40 employees of the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Ohio Department of Public Health
have minor time commitments to noise control. They are not included here because the limited extent of their
activities in this regard.
Data include Oregon Department of Environmental Quality employees only. Not included are a limited number
fiof Department of Transportation personnel engaged in some noise control activities of a minimal extent.
Employees of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Department of Health and Social Services
have minimal noise-related responsibilities, and are accordingly excluded.
33
-------
PESTICIDES - Workforce Projections by State 1976-1982 (est.)
STATES 1(?76 1977 1978 1979 1980 T981
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA X
ARKANSAS 2
CALIFORNIA3
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA4
HAWAI I
IDAHO
ILLINOIS3
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN6
MINNESOTA7
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
.NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA8
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON9
35
2
65
64
96
10
4
2
129
70
20
8
51
21
20
36
33
33:
8
32
14
115
23
58
66
12
8
17
4
10
11
47
70
5
11
27
61
35
2
66
64*
104
10
4
5
131
70
20
9
51
21*
20*
36*
33*
38
8
33
14
115*
23
58*
66*
11
9
17
4
15
11
47
70
11
14
27
64
47
2
67
64*
112
12
4
5
137
70
20
10
51
21*
20*
36*
33*
40
8
34
14
115*
23
58*
66*
11
10
17
4
16
11
54
70
11
14
29
65
47
2
68
64*
120
14
4
5
137
70
20
11
51
21*
20*
36*
33*
41
8
35
14
115*
23
58*
66*
11
10
17
4
17
11
54
70
11
14
30
71
47
2
69
64*
128
14
4
5
137
70
20
12
5.1
21*
20*
36*
33*
41
8
36
14
115*
23
58*
66*
11
10
17
4
18
11
54
70
11
17
31
75
49
2
71
64*
139
14
5
5
137
70
22
13
51.
21*
20*
36*
33*
41
8
36
14
115*
23
71*
72
11
10
17
9
19
11
54
72
11
17
31
80
34
-------
STATES,
.^«^ ^«
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS10
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
D.C.
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
1976
13
9
41
9
34
90
26
9
7
11
3
34
23
13
22
g
1977
13
9*
42
9
36
104
26
9
8
11.
3
36
23
14
24
3*
J978
27
9*
43
9
38
127
26
9
9
11
5
36
24
15
24
8*
1979
27
9*
44
9
40
135
26
9
10
11.
6
36
25
16
24
8*
T980
30
9*
45
9
41
142
26
9
11
11
6
36
25
17
24
8*
1981
30
11
47
9
42
147
26
9
11
11
6
36
Z5
17
24
8*
TOTAL " ' V'711 I»801 1'838 1)872 lt93
(For more information,, refer to individual state reports.)
PESTICIDES - GENERAL STATEMENT
The entries in this table include State employees only, unless otherwise indicated. County Extension
Agents, who in; some States engage in pesticide applicator training and certification, are excluded.
FOOTNOTES.
'The figures are exclusive of county health departments' employees.
^Entries include only employees of the Arkansas State Plant Board.
Entries include personnel of the [Department of Food and Agriculture, Agricultural Chemicals and Feed
Division, the Pesticide Residue Laboratory, the Pesticides Investigation Laboratory, and the Pesticide Education
.Coordinating Unit of the California Extension Service.
Entries include Georgia Department of Agriculture employees and State Extension and Structural Pest Control
gCommission personnel. Cooperative Extension Service Field Operations personnel have been excluded.
Entries include Illinois Department of Agriculture employees. State Cooperative Extension personnel, and two
persons with the Department of Public Health.
Data represent employees of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, State Cooperative Extension, Department
of Public Health and the Department of Natural Resources.
^Entries exclude County Agricultural Inspectors.
.Entries include North Carolina Department of Agriculture employees only.
Entires include Oregon Department of Agriculture Plant Division and Laboratory Services employees and
extension personnel involved in coordination of the applicator training program.
Entries include Texas Department of Agriculture, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Division personnel,
and persons cooperatively involved in pesticide programs representing the Structural Pest Control Board, the
Department of Health Resources, the Water Quality Board, and the Animal Health Commission.
35
-------
POTABLE WATER - Workforce Projections by State 1976-1982 (est.)
STATES
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA L
HAWAII .
IDAHO
ILLINOIS1'2
INDIANA1
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN3'
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI4
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
:!£!,' MEXICO
NEW YORK1'5
NORTH CAROLINA6
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO1
OKLAHOMA
OREGON 7
1976
30
8
15
40
68
Zl
16
16
34
34
38
20
96
30
10
19
18
16
25
.14
17
18
10
25
21
10
10
5
21
31
19
66
59
7
30
26
11
1977
32
16
15
40
68
23
16*
19
55
7Q
40
22
96
43
10
24
19
16*
28
20
17
29
12
31
31
11.
11
6
21
44
20
66
131
11
50
29
11*
1978
35
17
15
51
68
25
16*
23
55
78
40
27
124
53
10
28
26
16*
28
20
17
62
15
34
46
11
17
8
21
46
22
66
142
11
55
35
11*
1979
39
18
15
59
68
26
16*
27
55
85
40
32
155
69
10
31
33
16*
28
22.
17
88
18
37
65
11
20
11
21
48
24
66
222
11
60
35
11*
1980
43
18
15
61
68
26
16*
31
55
9Z
40
37
155
71
10
37
40
16*
28
22
17
113
21
38
70
11
24
12
21
50
25
66
260
11
76
35
11*
1981
46
18
15
61
68
27
16*
36
55
95
40
40
155
75
10
38
43
16*
/X">
28
22
113
*"» K
24
39
70
..
27
13
-21
53
26
141
295
11
86
35
11*
-------
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS 1
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA8
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
D.C.
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
TOTAL.
22
19
40
16
13
84
10
18
38
38
22
20
9
5
7
10
1,325
(For more infor
22*
20
51
._ 15
25
94
14
20
52
37
30
27
9
3
11
10
1,648 1,
ration, refer
22*
23
60
18
30
98
18
20*
66
36
38
27
9
8*
13
10
875
to i
22*
25
61
18
33
109
20
20*
81
35
44
27
g
3*
13
11
2,150
ndi vidual
22*
27
61
18
37
122
22
20*
94
,34
47
27
9
8*
18
12
2,320
22*
28
61
18
- 40
134
23
20*
110
33
47
27
9
8*
18
13
2,511
state reports.)
POTABLE WATER GENERAL STATEMENT
The substantial increases presented in this table are, for the most part, reflections of anticipation of
acceptance of primary enforcement responsibilities for the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA). It should be
borne in mind that the individual state's posture toward acceptance of primacy may have altered subsequent to
the development of the table.
The entries in this table include State employees only, unless otherwise indicated.
FOOTNOTES
Increases are due to personnel needs to increase enforcement activities and to SDWA.
Responsibilities for potable water supplies in Illinois are divided between the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency and the Illinois Department of Public Health. The projections assume the state will seek and accept
-primary enforcement responsibilities for SDWA.
The substantial increases are due to the increased workload anticipated with the acceptance of SDWA.
The increases are due to anticipated acceptance of SDWA. The additional personnel may be federal employees
if Missouri does not accept primacy.
The increases in staffing reflect the increase in program activities anticipated once New York assumes primacy
for SDWA. The increase is reflected in the last year because program professionals indicate that hiring will be
possible only through federal funding and they cannot predict when it will be forthcoming.
These projections, developed by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources. Water Supply Branch,
are based on anticipated staffing needs to implement modifications in North Carolina law and to implement
SDWA if primacy is accepted.
The Oregon water supply program, as of July 1, 1977, is being administered by U.S. EP.A. Region X. The
future status is uncertain.
The staffing increases are necessary for implementation of SDWA.
37
-------
RADIATION - Workforce Projections by State 1976-1982 fest.)
STATES
ALABAMA
* ( ft f"" A
nuno I\A
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
TAINS
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS.
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA '
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
1976
9
1
10
35
65
33
3
2
29
39
2
4
32
5
0
8
23
14
3
12
13
12
10
10
3
3
5
2
3
41
8
19
15
4
c
13
21
1977
13
1
10
37
55
38
3
2
32
43
2
5
32
10
0
8
26
14
3
13
' 13
12
10
12
5
3
6
2
3
45
8
19
21
4
5
13
21
1973
18
1
10
41
68
41
9
5
38
45
3
6
35
10
0
3
26
18
3
14
15
12
10
14
7
3
6
3
3
52
9
19
21
5
6
13
21
1979
18
1
12
44
70
42
10
5
44
43
3
7
37
12
0
10
26
18
3
14
15
12
10
16
9
3
7
3
3
52
10
19
28
r
6
16
22
1980
18
1
' 14
46
72
42
11
7
50
50
4
7
38
14
0
10
26
18
3
15
15
13
10
16
11
4
7
3
3
52
11
19
28
5
7
16
22
1981
18
1
15
46
73
42
11
8
55
53'
. 4
8
40
14
0
11
26
13
3
15
15
14
12
16
13
4
8
3
3
53
11
19
28
5
7
16
22
38
-------
STATES
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
O.C.
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
TOTAL
1976
24
10
20
2
11
33
5
4
1
8
1
6
2
5
10
1
670
1977
24
10
23
2
13
33
5
4
1
8
1.
5
2
. 5
10
1
712
1978
30
11
23
4
16
33
6
4
2
8
1
7
4
5
10
1
785
1979
30
11
24
4
20
38
6
4
2
8
- 4
7
4
5
10
1
339
1980
35
12
25
5
22
38
7
4
3.
'8
4
11
4
5
10
1
333
1981
39
13
26
5
22
38
7
4
3
8
. 4
11
4-
5
10
2
911
(For more information, refer to individual state reports.)
RADIATION - GENERAL STATEMENT
The entries in this table include State employees only, unless otherwise indicated.
39
-------
SOLID WASTc - Workforce Projections ay State ia/o-lbb^ lest)
STATES
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA1
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
'KANSAS
KENTUCKY z
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND 2
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
HEM HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY2
NEW 'MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA2
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
1976
5
8
2
8
35
7
10
9
25
36
2
9
36
12
12
6
33
7
9
22
10
11
20
8
10
10
7
11
5
40
5
46
14
3
12
12
18
1977
5
11
4
11
70
7
10
9
25*
38
2
9
37
20
13
6
33
7
9
30
10
13
20
12
12
10
9
13
5
56
5
51
22
4
15
12
25
1978
6
14
7
13
76
11
15
13
25*
48
2
10
38
30
14
7
68
12
9
36
10
16
20
12
14
10
14
13
" 5
87
5
51
30
5
24
16
25
1979
7
14
8
14
84
11
15
15
25*
56
3
12
39
35
16
8
83
14
9
42
10
19
22
12
16
11
16
14
5
87
5
51
36
8
30
21
25
1980
8
16
9
14
91
12
15
21
25*
61
3
IS
40
43
17
9
83
16
9
45
10
22
23
12 .
18
11
17
15
5
87
3
51
38
9
31
22
25
1981
10
16
9
14
98
13
15
21
25*
64
3
18.
41
50
18
10
83
16
12
48
10
25
24
12
20
11
17
15
5
88
8
51
41
9
31
22
25
40
-------
1976 1977 1978 1979 . 1980 1981
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS3
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN2
WYOMING
D.C.
PUERTO RICO2
VIRGIN ISLANDS
TOTAL
72
5
29
5
20
66
3
5
10
25
8
29
2
*
15
*
829
81
6
33
6
31
67
3
6
10
25
8
44
2*
*
1 0
1 O
*
990
90
3
37
6
35
77
4
7
13
26
8
55
2*
*
29
*
1,208
99
9
39
6
35
120
4*
8
15
28
9
63
2*
*
36
*
1,375
106
9
39
7
39
124
4*
9
18
'29
11
69
2*
*
36
*
1 ,453
no
9
39
7
39
132
4*
10
20
30
11 '
71
2*
*
36
*
1,513
(For more information, refer to individual state reoorts.)
SOLID WASTE - GENERAL STATEMENT
The substantial increases presented in this table reflect the anticipated staffing needs to Implement the
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The entries in this table include State employees only, unless otherwise indicated.
FOOTNOTES
The projections are those of the California Solid Waste Management Board. They reflect needs for RCRA and
local solid waste enforcement agency programs.
^The substantial increases are due to anticipated implementation of RCRA.
Increases reflect implementation of new state laws and increased enforcement activities. The Texas Bureau
of Environmental Health, Division of Solid Waste Management, and the Texas Water Quality Board, Solid
Waste Management personnel, are included.
41
-------
- vvorKiorce rrojecuons oy Mate 1976-1982 (est.)
STATES
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA1'2
GEORGIA1 *3
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA1
IOWA1
KANSAS1
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND 4
.MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSI?°I
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY l
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK1
NORTH CAROLINA1
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
1976
63
IS
17
36
496
41
76
- 36
224
107
34
35
196
113
58
50
1 00
78
52
18Z
m
79
102
68
56
7
39
TO
107
273
21
. 414
112
23
55
46
35
1977
70
20
17
38
501
41
76*
36
246
m
34
35
196
120
62
62
115
73*
62*
219
m
39
102
68
76
8
43
n
no
410
22"
429
127
26
63
48
35
42
1978
76
21.
17
40
508
43
76*
39
271
122
30
35
196
14Z
67
73
123
78*
62*
226
m
90
102
69
82
8
5T
12
110
446
25
448
130
27
72
52
35
1979
81
23
17
42
515
45
76*
39
298
133
30
44
196
145
72
77
132
78*
62*
238
m
91
102
69
82
8
53
13
no
474
28
465
135
29
32
54
35
1980
86
24
17
44
523
45
76*
45-
328.
" 145
30
47
196:
153
78
80
140
78*
62*
244
m
92
102
70
82
8
54
13
no -
494
30
485
143
31
84
56
35
1981
90
24
17
46
531
45
76*
45
361
T52
30
50
196
158
85
83
147
78*
52*
251
m
94
102
70
85
S
. 54
13
no
505
32
505
147
33
96
56
35
-------
STATES 1976 1977 1978 1979 1 you iy»i
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA1
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA1'5
WISCONSIN
WYOMING '
O.C..
PUERTO RICO1
VIRGIN ISLANDS
TOTAL
175
20
145
21
159
298
19
. 92
345 '
53
107
148
24
*
71
*
5,267
175
20
143
23
159
298
24
92*
350
53
115
"158
24*
*
74
*
5,626
175
21
144
27
167
304
27
92*
361
53
125
158
24*
*
78
*
5,871
175
23
144
29
167
315
28
92*
372
53
138
158
24*
*
82
*
6,035
175
24
144
33
167
326
30
92*
383
53
151
158
24*
*
86
*
6,287
175
24
144
33
167
329
30
92*
393
53
165
158
24*
*
91
*
6,461
(For more information, refer to individual state reports.)
WASTEWATER GENERAL STATEMENT
The entries in this table include State employees only, unless otherwise indicated.
FOOTNOTES
_The substantial increases are due to increased demand for services and enforcement activities.
3 The increases are dependent upon funding from the state legislature, and may not be actualized.
.The projections reflect perceived need, but are dependent upon federal and state appropriations.
_The increases are partially due to implementation of state legislation.
^"he increases are based on the assumption by the state of construction grants review and National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) delegation. Thus, the. bulk of the growth may occur in a single year
rather than as indicated.
43
-------
STATES
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
1975
5
5
9
10
573
N/A
43
3
.18
N/A
4
g
N/A
7
7
11
20
N/A
8
10
N/A
15
43
2
6
N/A
7
0
N/A
N/A
37
N/A
11
N/A
93
N/A
30
1977
7
r*
9
n
573
N/A
37
7
22
N/A
4
10
N/A
7
7
n
22
N/A
3
20
N/A
15
43
2
9
N/A
7
0
N/A
N/A
38
N/A
19
N/A
107
N/A
43
1978
9
8
6
15
573
N/A
37
7
30
N/A
4
n
N/A
7
7
n
24
N/A
8
20
N/A
17
45
2
n
N/A
7
0
N/A
N/A
39
N/A
20
N/A
112
N/A
43
1979
1.0
9
6
19
573
N/A
37
7
32
N/A
4
12
N/A
9
7
12
25
N/A
8
2.0
N/A
20
47
2
13
N/A
7
0
N/A
N/A
40
N/A
21
N/A
114
N/A
43
1980
n
n
6
22
573
N/A
37
7
35
N/-A
4
13
N/A
10
7
12
28
N/A
8
20
N/A
23
49
2
15
N/A
7
0
N/A
N/A
41
N/A
22
N/A
116
N/A
43
198T
12
11
7
24
573
N/A
37
7
40
N/A
12
14
N/A
10
7
13
28
N/A
8
20
N/A
25
51
2
17
N/A
7
0
N/A
N/A
42
N/A
23
N/A
118
N/A
43
44
-------
STATES
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING -
D.C.
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
TOTAL
1976
27
6
10
7
16
N/A
64
6
11
10
N/A
6
30
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,179
1977
38
6
13
9
16
N/A
67
6
15
20
N/A
7
38
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 ,278
1978
50
6
14
16
16
N/A
70
6
20
25
N/A
7
40
N/A
. N/A
N/A
1,343
1979
50
6
14
18
16
N/A
74
6
20
30
N/A
7
42
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,381
1980
50
6
14
23
16
N/A
78
6
20
-. 35
N/A
7
42
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,419
1981
50
6
14
25
16
N/A
82
6
20
40.
N/A
7
42
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,459
(For more information, refer to individual state reports.)
ENERGY - GENERAL STATEMENT
N/A = "Not Applicable": Because of the pervasive nature of energy-related activities, many states have
persons dealing with energy matters scattered throughout the state governmental structure. In order to achieve
some degree of consistency, only employees of state energy offices, agencies, commissions, or divisions are
included in the table.
45
-------
Total Pubiic Sector Workforce Projections ay state
STATES
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
MEM MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
1976
236
58
187
219
2,684
182
275
98
638
376
122
103
559
330
147
170
394
175
136
458
272
387
260
225
254
83
102
163-
575
152
809
423
74
538
185
270
1977
257
72
198
227
2,826
185
269
110
707
418
124
115
562
404
152
187
419
180
139
521
272
410
264
239
284
84
111
76
166
758
156
891
531
88
594
191
298
1978
294
84
201
250
2,903
204
275
130
783
453
121
127
598
446
158
203
492
191
139
536
274
449
275
246
311
85
131
82
166
851
164
935
555
91
656
208
301
1979
313
89
207
272
2,975
216
276
137
841
482
122
148
. 635
476
167
215
540
194
139
557
274
482
284
257
336
87
139
89
166
895
172
968
657
98
684
221
310
1980
329
95
213
282
3,048
222
277
158
905
509
123
163
640
503
174
227
563
196
139
568
274
515
292
260
347
90
145
93
166
931
181
1,004
706
102
719
226
315
1981
346
95
220
286
3,125
228
278
165
974
536
133
176
645
521
184
237
575
196
142
578
286
. .523
302
275
362
91
149
94
171
962
186
1,112
755
104
752 .
227
321
-------
STATES
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
D.C.
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
TOTAL
1976
558
86
351
68
403
1,101
159
151
530
239
200
319
104
46
156
30
16,890
1977
586
95
371
70
430
1,134
172
154
559
251
224
360
112
54
177
30
18,264
1978
659
104
391
86
452
1,185
188
155
599
256
252
372
117
59
201
30
19,474
1979
688
112
396
90
461
1,271
198
156
634
262
283
385
120
60
216
31
20,483
1980
737
118
402
101
472
1,315
.209
157
'668
267
310
390
120
61
222
32
21,281
1981
763
123
405
103
476
1,352
215
158
701
272
333
392
120
61
229
34
22,054
(For more information, refer to individual state reports.)
'Includes totals taken from tables on pages 30 through 45.
47
-------
(Private) Wastewater-Certified Operators by State 1976-1982 (est.
STATES
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
no i AN A
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
1976
654
46
530
1,325
7,655
978
615
250
2,705
1,247
56
. 326
2,201
*
4,361
400
1,400
585
275
800
*
1,619
728
244
2,000
623
344
66
*
*
435
*
1,778
134
1,640
1,241
*
1977
671
46*
744
1,375
8,044
1,104
695
262
2,651
1 ,448
56*
385
2,395
*
4,361*
400*
1,800
585*
310
800*
*
1,659
728*
300
2,567
685
344*
76
*
*
446
*
2,373
. 143
1 ,640*
1,297
*
1978
688
46*
958
1,426
8,435
1 ,230
785
275
2,874
1,647
56*
447
2,610
*
4,361*
400*
2,200
585*
345
800*
*
1,700
728*
356
2,715
752
344*
87
*
*
457
*
3,967
153
1 ,640*
1,355
*
1979
705
46*
1,172
1,486
8,824
1,335
887
287
3,105
1,847
56*
514
2,845
*
4,361*
400*
2,600
585*
380
800*
*
1,743
728*
413
2,871
827
344*
101
*
*
469
*
3,731
163
1 ,640*
1,415
*
1980
731
46*
1,386
1,541
9,215
1,450
1,002
300
3,355
2,046
56*
579
3,102
*
4,361*
400*
3,000
535*
415
800*
*
1,787
728*
469
3,037
911
344*
115
*
*
481
*
4,480
171
1 ,640*
1,458
*
1981
736
46*
1,600
1,599
9,065
1,576
1,132
312
3,626
2,247
56*
646
3,385
*
4,361*
400*
3,400
535*
450
800*
*
1,832
728*
525
3,212
1,004
344*
125
*
*
493
*
5,074
178
1 ,640*
1,472
*
"O
-------
STATES..,
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
D.C.
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
TOTAL 59,711 64,033 69,862 73,872 79,018 82,615
(For more information, refer to individual reports.)
1975
:A *
ID *
.INA 2,419
A 203
1,400
14,099
*
240
1,283
1,206
IIA *
1 ,849
*
*
)
\NDS *
1977
*
*
2,845
212
1 ,535
14,099
*
240*
1,496
1,433
*
? no A
C , v>^-r
*
*
*
*
1978
*
*
3,297
222
1,671
14,826
*
240*
1,709
1,597
*
2,219
*
*
*
*
1979
*
*
3,598
232
1,806
15,565
*
240*
1 ,922
1,711
*
2,404
*
*
*
*
1980
*
*
3,799
241
1 ,942
16,508
*
240*
2 ,1,35
1,873
*
2,589
-*
*
*
*
1981
*
*
3,999
251
2,077
16,508
*
240*
2,348
2,081
*
2,774
*
*
*
*
49
-------
\i isvCi&o/ i uibuic
STATES
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE .
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII .
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
T nt t A
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI -
. MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
1976
1 ,098*
8
745
750
5,279
1,461
30
*
1 ,934
1 ,247
*-
101
2,505
1,744
*
*
717
9TO
306
700
*
298
1,495
153
552
623
250*
TOO
760
*
431
*
1,734
228
2,500
1,709
*
^ «-»^
1 -31 1
1 ,098*
16
894
787
5,279
1,639
30
*
2,091
1,447
*
190
2,630
1,794
*-
300
.980
956
306*-
776
if
324
1,645
223
552*
685
250*
100*
760*
*
443
*
1,926
243
2,500*
1,789
*
* t*~rf*
i y i o
1 ,098*
17
1,043
826
5,279
1,816
30
*
2,262
1 ,647
*
288
2,762
1,844
*-
700
T,239
1,004
306*
389
*
353
1 ,795
292
552*
752
250*
100*
760*
*
455
*
2,117
260
2,500*
1,855
*
1979
1,098*
18
1,192
867
5,279
1,993
40
*
2,446
1,847
* '
400
2,901
1,894
*
1,100
1,481
1 ,054.
306*
984
*-
384
1,945
366
552*
827
250*
100*
760*
*
469
*
2,309
277
2,500*
1,933
*
1980
1 ,098*
18
1,341
910
5,279
2,129
50
*
2,647
2,047
*
488
3,046
1,944
*
1,500
1,752
1,107
306*
1,077
*
419
2,095
436
552*
911
250*
100*
760*
*
483
*
2,500
297
2,500*
2,013
*
1981
1 ,098*
18
1,490
912
5,279
2,266
60
*
2,865
2,247
*
556
3,198
1 ,994
*
1,900
2,024
1,162
306*
1,171
*
456
2,245
500
552*
1 ,004
250*
100*
760*
*
497
*
2,692
318
2,500*
2,098
*
50
-------
STATES
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
D.C.
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS .
TOTAL
. 1976
*
*
1,185
263
1,143
7,320
500
450
1,500
1 ,250
*
1,445
159
*
*
*
42,273
1977
*
*
1,252
275
1,752
7,569
500
450*
1 ,500*
1,319
. *
1,584
182
*
*
*
45,108
1978
*
*
1,323
289
1,904
7,946
550
450*
1,500*
1 ,384
*-
1,723
210
*
*
*
48,249
1979
*
*
1,393
303
2,056
8,342
600
450*
1 ,500*
1 ,463
*
1,863
241
*
*
*
51 ,460
1980
*
*
1,463
318
2,208
8,754
900
450*
1 ,500*
1 ,506
*
2,003
276
*
*
*
53,515
1981
*
*
1,533
333
2,360
9,185
900
575
2,500
1,550
*
2,143
316
*
*
*
57,861
(For more information, refer to individual state reports.)
FOOTNOTES
Due to the recent implementation of mandatory certification requirements in Kansas, the figures represent the
best available estimation of the total to be certified and the rate of certification.
The 2,500 certified operators noted for 1981 is the estimate of needed certified operators by that date. There
is no available schedule for rate of increase.
51
-------
Total Public Sector Workforce Projections by Environmental Category 1976-1982 (est.)
en
ro
CATEGORY
AIR
NOISE
PESTICIDES
POTABLE WATER
RADIATION
SOLID WASTE
WASTEWATER
ENERGY
1976
5,831
139
1,650
1,325
670
829
5,267
1,179
1977
6,157
142
1,711
1,648
i
712
990
5,626
1,278
1978
6,408
183
1,801
1,875
785
1,208
5,871
1,343
1979
6,613
201
1,838
2,150
839
1,376
6,035
1,381
1980
6,829
213
1,872
2,320
883
1,458
6,287
1,419
1981
7,026
235
1,933
2,511
911
1,513
6,461
1,459
TOTAL . '16,890 18,264 19,474 20,483 21,281 22,054
* Includes Totals taken from Tables on pages 30 throuqh 4!>.
( For more information, refer to individual state reports. )
-------
WORKFORCE
PROJECTIONS
BY
REGION
53
-------
en
AIR-Workforce Projections By Region 1976-1982 (est.)
REGIONS
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
1976
30
60
77
61
69
56
34
49
81
38 '
1977
36
63
83
63
90
56
40
49
89
38
1978
39
67
97
66
104
59
41
82
99
38
1979
45
71
114
66
108
63
47
90
99
38
1980
52
75
123
66
114
65
51
99
99
38
1981
59
78
130
66
118
68
56
99
99
38
%/annum
growth
(average)
15%
5%
11%
1%
12%
4%
10%
17%
4%
0%
TOTAL 555 607 692 741
[For more information, refer to individual regional reports.]
782
811
-------
NOISE-Workforce Projections By Region 1976-1982 (est.)
en
01
REGIONS
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
1976
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
1977
2
4
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
1978
3
5 .
4
4
?
2
2
4
'I
j
2
1979
3
5
5
4
3
2
3
5
2
2
1980
4
5
5
4
3
3
3
6
2
2.
1981
4
5
5
4
4
3
3
7
2
2
%/annum
growth
(average)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TOTAL
17
21
29
34
37
39
18%
[For more information, refer to Individual regional reports.]
-------
en
en
PESTICIDES-Workforce Projections By Regions 1976-1982 (est.)
%/annum
growth
REGIONS
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
1976
10
31
16
34
22'
19
17
17
27
6
1977
10
34
18
36
23
19
18
17
28
7
1978
11
37
20
41
24
22
19
17
35
8
1979
12
41
22
44
25
23
20
17
35
9
1980
13
45
24
47
27
23
21
17
35
9
1981
13
50
26
50
29
23
21
17
35
i
9
(average
5%
10%
10%
8%
6%
4%
4%
0%
6%
9%
TOTAL
199
210
234
248
261
273
7%
[For more Information, refer to individual regional reports.]
-------
en
POTABLE WATER-Workforce Projections By Regions 1976-1982 (est.)
%/annum
growth
REGIONS
I
II
III
IV
V
VI*
VII
VIII*
IX
X
1976
13
8
13
16
13
--
8
__
11
7
1977
14
9
21
22
17
--
10
J
13
8
1978
14
10 ,
30
27
18
'
15
--
15
8
1979
15
11
30
33
19
--
17
t
15
9
1980
15
12
30
37
20
--
20
__
15
9 -
1981
16
13
30
40
21
--
20
15
9
(avera
4%
10%
21%
21%
11%
.
21%
--
7%
5%
TOTAL
89
114
137
149
158
164
13%
*These figures are included in the wastewater table for the respective Regions.
[For more information, refer to individual regional reports.]
-------
C71
Co
RAD I ATI ON-Workforce Projection By Regions 1976-1982 (est.)
REGIONS
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
1976
2
3
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
2
1977
2
4
1
4
3
1
3
2
2
2
1970
2
5
4
6
3
4
3
3
2
2
1979
2
5
4
7
3
5
4
4
2
2
1980
2
6
5
8
3
6
4
5
2
2 '-
1981
2
6
5
8
3
7
4
6
2
2
x./ annum
, growth
(average!
Q%
10%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0%
TOTAL 19 24 34 38
[For more information, refer to Individual regional reports.]
43
45
19%
-------
en
10
SOLID WASTE-Workforce Projections By Regions 1976-1982 (est.)
%/annun.
growth
REGIONS 1976 1977 1978 1979 19JJO 1981 (average)
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
4
4
4
5
5
2
4
3
6
3
6
5
7
16
6
3
15
3
6
4
9
17
10
26
23
4
32
f>
a
6
11
17
15
30
35
6
32
6
11
6
12
20
15
30
39
6
32
7
12
7
12
20
15
30
47
6
32
7
12
7
27%
57%
34%
60%
77%
27%
78%
20%
10%
20X
TOTAL
40
71
140
169
180
188
41%
[For more information, refer to individual regional reports.]
-------
cr>
O
WASTE WATER-Workforce Projections By Regions 1976-1982 (est.)
REGIONS
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
-hi annum
growth
1981 (average)
I
II
III
IV
V
VI*
VII
VIII*
IX
X
78
279
268
186
202
107
71
91
147
47
81
293
295
204
237
113
113
96
142
47
91
307
325
217
277
119
134
99
152
48
94
322
358
229
324 '
125
145
103
152
48
94
338
394
236
379
132
156
107
152
49
94
355
433
243
443
139
164
112
152
49
4%
5%
10%
6%
17%
5%
20%
4%
1%
1%
TOTAL
1,476
1,621
1,769
1,900
2,037
2,184
*Regional potable water personnel are included in these figures.
[For more information, refer to individual regional reports.]
-------
REGIONS
ENERGY-Workforce Projections By Regions 1976-1982 (est.)
%/annum
growth
1981* (average
1976*
1977*
1978*
1979*
1980*
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
__
__
__ __ ._..._
. _-
__
003 3 3 3 N/A
-_
20 20 21 21 22 22 2%
TOTAL
20
20
24
24
25
25
5%
*Included in this table are only energy personnel employed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
[For more information, refer to individual regional reports.]
-------
cr,
ro
REGIONS
Total Workforce Projections by Region 1976-1982 (est.)
%/annum
growth
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 (average)
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
139
388
380
307
314
186
138
184
274
]05
151
412
427
348
378
193
200
190
281
108
169
448
490
387
451
213
246
231
312
112
182
472
548
413
517
227
268
246
316
114
192
501
596
428
585
238
287
263
317
116
200
527
644
441
665
249
300
270
317
116
8%
6%
11%
8%
16%
6%
18%
8%
3%
2%
TOTAL
2,415
2,688
3,059
3,303
3,523
3,729
9%
[These figures do not represent the total numbers of personnel In the regional EPA offices, but the
numbers working specifically In the eight fields covered by this study. For more Information, refer
to individual regional reports.]
-------
CJ
Total Regional Workforce Projections by Environmental Category 1976-1982 (est.)
CATEGORY
AIR
NOISE
PESTICIDES
POTABLE WATER*
RADIATION
SOLID WASTE
WASTEWATER*
ENERGY
1976
555
17
199
89
19
40
1,476
20
1977
607
21
210
114
24
71
1,621
20
1978
692
29
234
137
34
140
1,769
24
1979
741
34
248
149
38
169
1,900
24
1980
782
37
261
158
43
180
2,037
25
1981
811
39
273
164
45
188
2,184
25
%/annum
growth
(average)
8%
18%
7%
13%
19%
41%
8%
5%
TOTAL
2,415
2,688
3,059
3,303
3,523
3,729
*For Regions VI and VIII potable water personnel are included in the wastewater category.
[For more information, refer to individual regional reports.]
9%
------- |