(47bd) The Capability-Demand Gap In US Refining and Petrochemical Console Operations

The Capability-Demand Gap in US Refining and Petrochemical Console  Operations

By George Dzyacky

Director of Training Services, RSI Simcon, Inc.

Of all the professional, trade and administrative disciplines required to operate a refinery or petrochemical facility, managers, accountants, engineers, electricians, pipefitters, machinists, administrative assistants etc.; console operators who unarguably occupy the most safety-critical position in the plant, are the only ones trained and brought all the way to “qualification” by their coworkers.

Who is best suited to train operators?

“We are”, say most of the operation training departments in the U.S. RPI , and this has been true for a very long time. The roots of these training practices go back generations, and pre-date the existence of process training companies that now serve our industry. Over the last twenty-five or so years, professional training consultants have developed extensive expertise in the border region between two previously distinct disciplines: unit-specific process operator training and the science of adult learning.

The Unit Trainer

The responsibility for operator training (both field operators and console operators) in the U.S. RPI typically resides at the process unit level. This is chiefly due to the fact that for many decades there simply didn’t exist external training companies that could tackle the complexities of equipment specificity and the apparent idiosyncratic training requirements encountered in a typical process unit. Conventional wisdom correctly led the industry to conclude that no one was better positioned to train operators, than other operators who had mastered the operational nuances of these complex units.

Traditionally and out of necessity, Operator Trainers are pulled from the ranks of operators who, it should be noted, are very often hired into operating positions without prior specialized training or educational achievement beyond a high school diploma.

They train what they know

The operators who become Operator Trainers as I once did, and like the operation supervisor who trained me years before that, train well on the things they know. But their body of unit process knowledge is too often encompassed by the instructions they received from their operator trainer, and the knowledge and skills they acquired as a result of their personal motivation and inquisitiveness. As a result Operator Trainers naturally focus on the essential tasks that made them good at what they do, such as:

• Understanding alarms and how to respond to them
• Knowing where to locate and read instrumentation
• Knowing where to locate and how to make rounds on process equipment, vessels and control valves
• Knowing the purpose and safe use of utilities
• Knowing where to locate and when to utilize procedures
• Describing the basic functionality of technologies in the plant

While these training topics are appropriate for most field operator positions, they fall short of the skills required to be a competent console operator. There still exist in our industry today, many sites where console operator training is accomplished by osmosis. Absent any formal curriculum, operators are assigned to parallel or “shadow” on the console  with an experienced, qualified operator for weeks or months until they can replicate the key tasks of their trainer.

The problem with training by osmosis

From the Center for Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, “Guidelines for Preventing Human Error in Process Safety, on operator training: “In general, little use is made in the process industry of more sophisticated approaches such as job and task analysis to define the mental and physical skills required for specific types of work, and to tailor the training program accordingly. Instead, informal on-the-job training is common, even in more complex types of work such as control room tasks. Although the necessary skills will eventually be acquired by this process, its inefficiency leads to the need for extended periods of training. In addition, there is the problem that inappropriate or even dangerous practices may become the norm as they are passed from one generation of workers to the next.”

To achieve the level of competency demanded in this job, Console operators in the U.S. RPI must have formal classroom, simulator, and on-the-job training to achieve full capability. Certainly no less rigorous than that of many regulated trades such as, Journeyman Electrician or Machinist. Console operator training must cover topics such as process theory, process control, safety guidelines, safety procedures, math for technicians, instrumentation, pumps, valves, thermodynamics, chemistry, distillation, boilers, furnaces, compressors, reactors, heat exchanges and troubleshooting to name some.

On human error

From the Center for Process Safety for the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the book “Guidelines for Preventing Human Error in Process Safety,” defines the cause of human error in the U.S. RPI this way; “… a systems perspective is taken, which views error as a natural consequence of a mismatch between human capabilities and demands, and an inappropriate organizational culture.”

In stark contrast

The State of Texas requires a hair stylist to successfully complete 1500 hours, ten months, of training in a state licensed institution. Only after successful completion of state sanctioned written and demonstration tests, does the Texas State Department of Licensing and Regulation issue a Cosmetology Certificate and allow the graduate to cut hair.

But for console operators, in control of process units that have more instrumentation and greater cost than a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, training and testing is not sanctioned by any state or regulatory body in the U.S.. It is not uncommon for console operators to be in complete, sole control of a process with fast dynamics where hazardous chemicals and hydrocarbons are held under hundreds or thousands of pounds of pressure. Further, it is also not uncommon for these operators to have achieved this level of responsibility with no more than a high school diploma and to have been brought to “qualification” by a coworker over a period of several months.

A cursory review of completed investigations by the US Chemical Safety Board, dramatically illustrates just how dangerous and deadly are these processes. The U.S. RPI conducts business in an era of increased governmental, community and legal scrutiny. Yet despite the known dangers to workers and surrounding communities posed by the variety of refining and chemical processes, there is no regulatory oversight or industry-wide standards that mandate minimum curricula or validate the competency of those in control of these plants.

Can the industries do it?

The majority of operator trainers and operator training departments in the U.S. RPI are not prepared to train console operators against a competency framework to appropriate proficiency levels, for reasons of skill, resources and culture. The training interventions (courses) are highly specialized and tend to exceed the expertise and resources of most in-house training departments. The level of training needed to meet the demands of the job is greater in duration and cost than historically presumed appropriate. Lastly, training is not the industry’s core business.

What needs to change?

We must no longer accept the outdated culture and practices of operators-training-operators. console operators in refining and petrochemical industries should be required to successfully complete comprehensive curricula, based on a competency framework, targeted to teach technical fundamentals, process fundamentals and unit-specifics.

One approach is to have the methods and standards for competency identification, curricula development and assessments managed through an Industrial-Academic Consortium, coordinated by an industry-recognized trade association such as the AFPM or API.

The training must include formal classroom and simulator training covering the entire range of topics from fundamental concepts to unit-specific emergency response.

After trainees demonstrate proficiency in the fundamentals they enter the unit-specific portion of training where they learn to operate their unit. At that point the Operator Trainer comes back into the picture. But this time the trainer is not burdened with the responsibility for designing training programs, that task requires the skill sets of training professionals. The Operator Trainer fills the role in the development of a training program for which they are perfectly suited and qualified – that of Subject Matter Expert (SME). The Operator Trainer works with professional training consultants who specialize in the development and execution of fundamental and unit-specific training material and process simulations, to insure the training is customized for their unit.

After successfully completing the fundamental and unit-specific training courses the console operator would serve an apprenticeship, paralleling on the actual console with a previously qualified operator before the trainee is certified to work the console alone.

As a model for rigorous competency assurance we can look to the nuclear industry, where the knowledge base and performance levels of licensed nuclear board operators parallel closely in depth and breadth to those of console operators in the refining and petrochemical industries, along with salaries.

This type of approach to achieving uniform competency assurance in the refining and petrochemical industries, will not only give plant managers and surrounding communities the innate assurance that all is well in the control room, but will pay for itself many times over, in day-to-day operational benefits and in the timely mitigation of emergencies.