1 Ammonia Operator Training and Certification Retreat June 5-6, 2002 Held at the Concourse Hotel One West Dayton Street Madison, WI Hosted by the IRC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The IRC hosted a two-day workshop to explore the current state and future needs in the area of ammonia operator training and certification. Fourteen of the twenty-nine attendees were from end-user companies. Several other key industry players participated in the workshop including: IIAR, RETA, and Garden City Community College. The workshop included a series of presentations made by IRC staff, IRC member companies, and other participants. With information from the prepared presentations disseminated to all workshop participants, breakout groups were organized to address key issues surrounding the needs for ammonia operator training and certification. The workshop concluded with the group voting on next steps. The two recommendations for moving forward were to: 1. Form a committee to pursue a guideline for training (14 votes) 2. Survey the industry – receptiveness, market size (7 votes) The group felt that IIAR is the logical organization to lead the development of an ammonia operator training guideline. BACKGROUND Ammonia refrigeration operators play an important role in the safe, efficient, reliable, and productive operation of industrial refrigeration systems. OSHA’s Process Safety Management (29 CFR 1910.119) regulations require employers to train those involved (operators and supervisory staff) in the operation of covered processes, including large ammonia refrigeration systems. In addition, the PSM standard requires that those involved in the operation of a covered process be qualified. The issue of training is further clouded by local jurisdictional requirements for operators of industrial refrigeration systems. 2 Many industrial refrigeration end-users have faced challenges in defining the appropriate training requirements, effective training approaches, and methods for validation and qualification of their ammonia refrigeration operators. Several end-users have also expressed their interest and desire for a national-level certification program that would establish a recognized credential for ammonia refrigeration operators. On June 5-6, 2002, the Industrial Refrigeration Consortium (IRC) at the University of Wisconsin held a retreat to address the topic of ammonia refrigeration operator training. Twenty-nine participants came together to share information on approaches for training and qualifying ammonia refrigeration operators. Workshop participants included fourteen end-users as well as several other prominent industry stakeholders including representatives from IIAR, RETA and Garden City Community College. OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATIONS Workshop Overview and Goals: Doug Reindl of the IRC provided an overview of the workshop and a review of the goals. The goals of the workshop were to:  Disseminate information on the operator training requirements and qualifications based on workshop participant-company programs.  Look at the development of training and certification efforts being undertaken by organizations around the country.  Review the range of operator requirements based on a range of local jurisdictions.  Discuss the need for a national certification effort. If there is a general consensus supporting the need for a national certification, develop specific recommendations for pursuing that certification effort. Attendees added the following goals they were seeking during roundtable introductions: Identify effective strategies for attracting operators to the industry Reach a consensus on what is really needed for training Share ideas to improve our program Identify what's working and what's not Get a sense of the importance of certification Achieve collective support for moving in the "right" direction Make a case for training as an investment Determine how ASHRAE and IIAR can help? Recruit operators Compare ourselves with others 3 Current Practices in Ammonia Operator Education and Training: Presentations were made by several end-user representatives. Dan Webb of CF Industries (CFI) discussed the multi-level operator classifications applicable to CFI’s ammonia storage terminals. Training is very important to CFI; however, none of the course offerings currently on the market meet the somewhat unique needs of CF for training operators on refrigeration principles and practices. Dan is developing his own curriculum for CF operators. Gary Webster and Don Stroud of Kraft Foods provided a historical perspective of ammonia operator training across the 37 plants of the Kraft Foods family that utilize ammonia as a refrigerant. Kraft has a mix of plant sizes, operator task expectations, labor environment (union/non-union), 24/7 coverage, and state licensing requirements. Kraft is in the process of unifying and strengthening its operator training program across all Kraft plants. Mike Haller with input from his colleagues at Wells’ Dairy provided the group with an overview of their ammonia operator training program. Wells’ has been developing a thorough ammonia operator training regimen and has multiple levels in its refrigeration trades. WDI relies on several sources of ammonia training as well as internal learning opportunities. Bent Wiencke of Nestle presented an overview of the ammonia operator structure within Nestle and training approaches for operators. Presently, Nestle has one classification for ammonia operators but a pay range for that classification that depends on time and experience. Each operator completes a sequence of training that involves both in-house and contracted programs. Godan Nambudiripad of General Mills provided a historical perspective on ammonia operator training. General Mills utilizes multiple media to accomplish ammonia operator training. IIAR videos, RETA materials, and contracted in-house training programs provide the bulk of their ammonia operator training. Ammonia Operator Training/Certification Efforts: Presentations were made by representatives from IIAR, RETA, and Garden City Community College to provide the group with an overview of their perspectives in this area and a preview of their future directions. Kent Anderson, IIAR President, provided an overview of IIAR as well as perspectives on ammonia operator training. Among IIAR members surveyed, ammonia-related training and education remains a high priority. Education has also been identified in IIAR’s recent strategic plan that establishes the mission of the organization to focus on "education and advocacy". Mike Conti, President of RETA gave an update on their efforts to strengthen their operator training materials and efforts. RETA has been in the process of updating their training books and will also be translating some to Spanish within the next year. RETA’s director of 4 credentialing, Carolyn Potts, discussed RETA’s plans to seek ANSI accreditation for their certification program. Randy Williams of Garden City Community College (GCCC) discussed their efforts to draft a standard (Industrial Ammonia Refrigeration) for ammonia operator certification. GCCC is planning on rolling out their program within the next year. They are seeking interested parties to serve on their board to guide the program. Other Certification Efforts: Dan Dettmers from the IRC presented an overview of other industry certification efforts. Dan discussed the history of the NATE program (targeting technicians for packaged air conditioning systems) and successor competing certification program efforts. Overview of Some Ammonia Operator Jurisdictional Requirements: Todd Jekel of the IRC provide an overview of several local jurisdictional requirements for staff involved in the operation of ammonia refrigeration systems. Todd covered specific requirements for Michigan, New Jersey, Canadian Provincial, Rhode Island, Utah, and Seattle, Washington. The ANSI Process & Overview of ISO/IEC 17024: ANSI program director Dr. Roy Swift presented via an on-line teleconference link to provide the group an overview of ANSI and the ANSI standard process. Roy also discussed the proposed ISO standard 17024, General Requirements for Bodies Operating Certification Schemes for Persons. BREAKOUT SESSIONS Next the attendees divided into three separate groups for break-out sessions. The groups were divided along the lines of participants' tentative opinions toward a national certification effort: Group A "Pro Certification", Group B "Con Certification", and Group C "Neutral" Group A Findings: Group A "Pro Certification" was to discuss the merits, barriers, and next steps for development and deployment of an ammonia operator certification standard or program. The group refocused their efforts on an "Education Standard" for ammonia operators. The following summarizes the key findings of the group for each of the issues identified below. Key benefits of an "education standard": Improve quality of operators Establish a standard competency level Opportunity to self-regulate Minimize risks from unqualified operators Recognized by OSHA 5 What is the path? "Education standard" Consensus effort Not necessarily ANSI process Possibly future ANSI approval Used by others to develop training and certification programs and curricula How to fund development? RETA - $ and in-kind IIAR GCCC – in-kind grant-writer OSHA grants Dept. of Education grants Industry donations What are the next steps? Establish an advisory board – IIAR, RETA, IRC, GCCC, end-users Establish scope of standard Group B Findings: Group B "Con Certification" felt that attaining a national certification standard to meet end-user’s varied needs for their operators would be very difficult. This breakout group also felt that there is currently no consensus definition of an operator. In summary, Group B felt that guidelines for training would offer the best cost/benefit. Group C Findings: Group C "Neutral" was formed to encourage "out of the box" thinking. Features of an ammonia certification standard that the group found attractive included: Encourages training (employer and employee) Accreditation and professionalism to field Validation for government and owners Recruitment Characteristics of an ammonia operator certification standard the breakout group disliked included: Vague nature of certification – false sense of security More bureaucracy Who administers this, what are their credentials…? Cost to implement and sustain this Items Group C identified that need resolution include: Who's going to administer and develop this test? What does industry want? (Scientific survey) How do you get buy-in from industry/CEO's? 6 Possible alternatives to a certification program Group C identified included: Develop 1-2 year certificate/degree programs through vo-tech schools Promote existing programs Develop industry consensus guidelines NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the breakout sessions, the participants reconvened and the breakout session leaders summarized their groups' findings. These findings were distilled down into four potential alternatives as "Next Steps". All remaining attendees voted on the four next steps (votes for each item are shown in parentheses). 1. Form a committee to pursue a certification program (0 votes) 2. Form a committee to pursue a guideline for training (14 votes) 3. Do nothing (0 votes) 4. Survey the industry – receptiveness, market size (7 votes) Clearly, the next step identified by the group was to form a balanced committee to pursue the development of a guideline for training. Much of the discussion of next steps centered around the importance of balance, avoiding conflict of interest, consensus, etc. in the process of developing the guideline. Virtually all of the characteristics the group identified are part of the ANSI process for standards development. The group felt that IIAR would be the logical organization to lead the development of the guideline with close involvement from RETA and other stakeholders such as end-users and GCCC. The pages that follow summarize the raw information collected during the breakout group discussions. 7 Group Break-Out Details Group A – Pro Certification 1 Why is a national ammonia operator certification standard or program needed, what are the key benefits of such a program? Help small plants [3] Means of baselining minimum requirements Establish a standard competency level [25] Clarify requirements – minimize interpretation Common curriculum [2] Method to share and capture best practices [4] Provides professional development and career path [5] More efficient systems Improve quality of operators [26] Minimize risk from unqualified operators [9] Opportunity to self-regulate [15] Another means to verify operator abilities [3] Pre-employment tool [3] Put the industry on a uniform level (raise the bar) Benefit to employees Creates framework for developing training programs [2] Tools to evaluate training program Recognized by OSHA [9] What are the barriers; what issues need to be resolved for this to move ahead? Agreement on basic standard and needs No existing national skill standards Fear of government adopting as a requirement Competition for ownership and control – need cooperation Getting support from end-user companies Consensus definition of operator Methods for unbiased evaluation Increased costs for training and wages Funding Union issues Ability of operators to meet requirements Fear of end result – won't participate Industry-wide support Phase-in issues OSHA acceptance 1 The numbers in brackets indicate the level of priority established by the breakout group. A higher number means a higher priority as collectively assigned by the group. 8 What characteristics would make the program a success? Voluntary Common direction with all groups (common effort) Wide industry support Set testing at a realistic achievable level Multiple levels of certification Get OSHA recognition/acceptance Uniform guideline compiled by industry High quality Scientifically developed using accepted standard and certification practices Marketing of program Developed quickly Leads to accepted training programs Well-defined, not vague Education of managers, supervisors – clarify terminology and concepts to get support Consensus process What are the next steps? Define scope of standard skill set – learning objectives, training requirements Establish advisory board task force Don't delay Get commitments Should it be a consensus standard (or certification body?)? Yes/No? If so, what is the path? Consensus Not necessarily ANSI Future ANSI? Used by others for training and certification How should/could the certification standard development be funded (how should it be funded and what is realistic)? RETA - $ + in-kind IIAR GCCC – in-kind support to pursue grants OSHA Industry donations - $, volunteer effort Department of education – required grant-writer 9 Group B – Con Certification Why is a national ammonia operator certification standard not needed, or why should it not be pursued? Cost – program delivery, manpower We have a program within PSM Danger of mandatory certification (licensing) Lost flexibility in applying in-house training programs Union pool – no ownership in system Unionization Too many differences between systems No consensus on definition of operator Cumbersome Certification does not mean qualification Create "unlevel" playing field if required by some jurisdictions but not others Lack of consensus will result in un-useable end result What are the barriers? What is a "national standard"? Disagreement among associations (IIAR, RETA, …) "Scope creep" Cost – developing consensus; testing/training Voluntary, but not widely accepted puts entire program at risk What are the risks of a national ammonia operator certification standard? Lack of market (critical mass) to sustain Increased labor costs Validation loses credibility if not enforced If certified, but unqualified, jeopardizes credibility of certification Baby with a power tool – If perceived as not independent from training program, can discredit certificate What issues would need to be resolved for a certification standard to move ahead? Grandfather issues Funding Conflict of interest Who is the governing body? Recognition and acceptance Definition or scope of program 10 What is the market size? Cost/benefit analysis of certification for scope development Is an alternative needed to a national ammonia operator certification standard? If so, what do you envision? Expand market to a larger operator pool (umbrella ref. with boiler, compressed air, etc.) Cross-training certificate Consensus guidelines for training No change Standard training model Industry-accepted test Group C – Neutral What do you find attractive about a national ammonia operator certification standard? Validation of operator's knowledge Encourages training Provides competitive job market for operators Assists the small IR owner in finding skilled labor Standardization of operators and operation of systems Easy documentation for government audits – recognition Elevate overall operator ability in industry Enhance operator pride/achievement in job Option for owner's training curriculum Keep government out of developing standard Help increase operator pay Training track for high school students going into industry Provide support/ammo for arguing modification to existing government regulation Transferable to new employers Objective basis for pay raises Accredits operators Convince owners that ammonia is important and essential to their manufacturing process Consensus of industry experts Recognize as a specialized field Add professionalism to the field Develop apprenticeship program May improve training What do you dislike about a national ammonia operator certification standard? Cost to employer More bureaucracy Headache of getting national recognition 11 Cost to develop, implement and sustain program Another certificate to obtain/keep track of Certifying veteran operators False sense of security – not specific to individual system Still leaves more training Labor costs may rise Variations of training accepted to achieve certification It doesn't necessarily improve training Can become a union issue (more than $) Can't be plant/process specific Be careful of good ol' boys network setting and people receiving certificate who don't deserve it Grandfathering – what do you do with veteran operators who can't pass the test? Who administers this, what are their credentials, what gives them the right? What questions would need to be answered or what issues would need to be resolved for you to be decided? Where does $ come from to start this? Who's going to develop and administer the test? What's the time frame for program <?>? What does industry want (need a scientific study)? How are you going to roll it out (notify industry)? How does it help my company? What is the industry consensus document on which this is based, who puts it together and how? How do you get buy-in from industry/CEO's? Are there alternatives to a national certification standard that should be considered or pursued? Why? Promote existing programs Develop industry consensus guidelines Develop 1-year certification, 2-year degree programs through vo-tech schools and junior colleges Promote awareness of job opportunities in industry (back to high school level) Tack on materials to established HVAC programs