← Risk register SOC 51-8099 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Plant and System Operators, All Other

14,080 US workers · median $62,470/yr · Production

EXPOSED

This catchall covers control-room and field operators of industrial, gas, chemical, and utility systems — reading gauges and SCADA screens, logging readings, adjusting valves and pumps, running rounds, and responding to alarms. The screen half of the job (trend monitoring, logging, routine setpoint adjustment, shift reports) is exactly what modern DCS automation and AI anomaly detection absorb, and staffing per plant has been falling for two decades. What holds is the physical half: walking the plant, isolating equipment, diagnosing a pump that sounds wrong, and making the judgment call to trip or ride through an upset with real safety and regulatory consequences.

10-year outlook: Fewer operators per plant as remote and centralized control rooms consolidate shifts, but licensed operators who can physically diagnose, isolate, and restart equipment will stay on site through 2035.

US employment, 2019–2025+8.7%
12,95014,080 workers

Headcount grew steadily across the period.

Median pay $58,390 → $62,470 -14.4% in real terms (nominal +7.0%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+1.6%

Percentage only. The projection counts a different population from the 14,080 above — it includes self-employed workers, which for this occupation is most of them, so the two headcounts are not comparable.

Growing, and only partly exposed

The BLS expects +1.6% more of these jobs by 2034, and at 57/100 the work is only partly exposed — some tasks are automatable, the core of the job is not. Nothing here is in tension.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~1,600 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

RolleyFire TenderLock TenderBoard OperatorGarbage StokerBatcher OperatorEthanol OperatorProcess OperatorWatershed TenderChemical OperatorRecovery OperatorRolling AttendantProcess TechnicianSystems TechnicianBulk Plant OperatorHigh Pressure FirerPanelboard OperatorPressure ControllerProduction OperatorBatch Plant OperatorIncinerator OperatorLime Filter OperatorSand Plant AttendantIncinerator Attendant

This is a catch-all code, not a single job

The BLS uses Plant and System Operators, All Other for work that doesn't fit any named occupation, so it covers roles that have little in common with each other. Two consequences worth knowing before you read anything below:

If a more specific occupation on the register describes what you actually do, that page is the one to trust.

Score — 57/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (16/20). Weakest point: trust premium (6/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 12 + 16 + 10 + 6 + 13 = 57. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 12/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier Setpoint trimming, trend watching, and shift-log entry are already handled by DCS historians and alarm-management packages, but the same operator still has to physically valve in a spare pump, pull a strainer, and hang lockout tags during a startup — roughly half the shift resists code, which is why this sits at 12 rather than in the resistant band with millwrights.

Embodiment 16/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments Rounds run through areas with H2S monitors, steam headers, confined-space entries, and hot work permits, and diagnosing a bearing by sound, vibration in the hand, or a leak smell is done standing at the machine in weather — that uncontrolled, whole-plant footprint is what puts it at 16 rather than the 8 of a control-room-only console operator.

Liability shield 10/20

Certification preferred, not legally required Many of these positions carry a state boiler/stationary engineer licence or utility operator certification and you personally sign permits and log entries that an OSHA PSM or PHMSA investigator will read, but the process safety citation lands on the facility and the plant engineer, not your ticket — licensed-but-not-the-named-liable-party is exactly a 10.

Trust premium 6/20

Some relationship component Your counterparties are the incoming shift, the control room, and maintenance planners who rely on a clean turnover and an honest round sheet; that continuity has real value inside the fence but no customer chooses the plant because of you, so 6 is the floor of relationship rather than anonymous output.

Judgment & accountability 13/20

Meaningful discretion Deciding whether an alarm cascade is instrument drift or a real excursion, and whether to trip a unit at 3 a.m. against production pressure, is a call you own in the moment with people and permits downstream — it stops short of 17 only because emergency operating procedures and interlocks define most of the decision tree for you.

Confidence: medium · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, judgment, licensure

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: edX — operations management and process monitoring courses free to audit · OSHA Outreach Training — the 10- and 30-hour cards most employers ask for low · Khan Academy — reading and vocabulary, all levels, free free · edX — performance measurement and evaluation free to audit · Coursera — quality control and inspection courses, auditable free free to audit · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 76/100 — SAFE.

6 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening judgment accountability +4

    Task-mix shift is genuine here: this role has a routine tier (logging, trend watch, routine setpoint tweaks) and a judgment tier (trip-or-ride-through under an upset, isolation and lockout-tagout decisions, abnormal-condition response). As DCS and anomaly detection absorb the routine tier, the remaining post is defined by consequential calls with fewer people on shift, and formal designation as control-room operator-in-charge under PHMSA CRM or a state permit raises the accountability score.

  • plausible liability shield +5

    State/EPA-delegated operator certification rules extended to systems currently uncovered: water/wastewater operators already require a named certified operator-in-responsible-charge (ABC/state boards) whose license is on the permit. If PHMSA control-room management rules (49 CFR 192.631/195.446) or OSHA PSM 1910.119 are amended to require a named qualified human operator to authorize any AI- or algorithm-initiated setpoint change, trip, or override — and to sign the shift log — the shield rises materially.

  • plausible liability shield +3

    Insurer-driven rather than statutory: FM Global / property-carrier boiler-and-machinery conditions requiring documented human authorization of automated control actions as a condition of coverage after a loss involving autonomous control.

  • plausible task resistance +3

    If NERC CIP-style cyber segmentation or gas/chemical control-system security rules restrict remote and cloud-hosted control, more of the day's work must be performed by a person physically inside the plant on an air-gapped console, keeping field verification and manual isolation in the human column.

  • plausible judgment accountability +2

    Post-incident CSB recommendations (as after Chevron Richmond and Philadelphia PES) that plants designate a single named on-shift decision authority for trip decisions, rather than distributed consensus or automated logic.

  • plausible embodiment +2

    Already near ceiling; only a formal minimum-staffing requirement for physical rounds (e.g. a union contract or state rule mandating a field operator per shift, as in some utility collective agreements) locks in the existing physical share rather than raising it.

The limit. This is a statistical catchall spanning very different regulatory regimes; levers that apply to a gas control-room operator under PHMSA may not touch an operator in an unregulated industrial plant, so aggregate movement is likely smaller than the best-case sub-segment. No realistic route to a trust premium — buyers purchase throughput and uptime, not a named human, and nobody chooses a plant's product because a person watched the screen.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 70 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 1,010 $50,720 -19%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 780 $53,200 -15%
Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO 480 $48,550 -22%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 400 $77,130 +23%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 380 $83,760 +34%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 290 $78,500 +26%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 270 $80,430 +29%
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 230 $51,210 -18%

Best paid

Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA 90 $94,420 +51%
Reno, NV 40 $92,870 +49%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 230 $91,310 +46%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $62,470. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 57. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.