Predictive Safety s Fatigue Management System: Benefits Realization Report

Predictive Safety s Fatigue Management System: Benefits Realization Report 1. Scope This document contains the benefits realization information as required for a follow up on FMS Implementation project. The closure report defined two reporting periods for the benefits realization, one ending 30 September 2013 and the second period ending 30 November 2013. The end date for the final period was extended to 28 Feb, 2014 in order to establish more conclusive evidence of the benefits since the end of the project, 30 June, 2013. This report provides the summary and detail results over both periods as defined by FMS Fatigue Management Implementation Project. 2. Benefits Measuring Plan 2.1 Closure Report Benefits Plan Benefits realization will focus on the following areas: - Proactively identifying employees at risk as a result of fatigue - Provide reports that will enable manager s to reduce total number of hours worked during high periods of fatigue risk - and ensure employees working at high fatigue zones are performing countermeasures - LTI and HPI rates linked to high risk fatigue hours will be reduced - Absenteeism as a result of fatigue will be minimized (Secondary benefit) The benefits measurement will be carried out in two benefit tracking periods. One will be in September 30 th 2013 and the other in February 28 th 2014. The tracking periods will provide reports and evidence tracking - Total hours worked in significant fatigue zone, high fatigue and sever fatigue zone. The success of the solution will result in these hours declining. - Fatigue related LTI and HPI over the periods will be measured and the anticipation is that there will be a reduction in these rates - During the benefit tracking period the compliance to countermeasures will be measured to correlate with the rates reduction fatigue related incidents 1 of 11

- A pre survey and a post survey will be carried out on FMS Fatigue solution to identify befits and areas of improvement The owners and implements of the benefits tracking will be as follows: - The pre and post survey will be carried out through an independent party estimate 80 hours of data collection and analysis - Utilizing exiting reporting to measure the benefits 50 hrs estimate (July, August, September, October and November) 2.2 Final Results Summary Summary of FMS s Performance: (14 months covering Jan 2013 through Feb 2014) Total Mine Employees Monitored Total Employee Hours Monitored Fatigue Hours Detected Significant High Severe Total Alert SMS Delivered Total Times Countermeasures Accepted ~ 1000 2.1 M Man-Hours 132,203 15,370 776 71,800 8,800 Summary of Benefits Results Performance Indicator Improvement Period Measured Groups Measured Benefit Total Hours Worked in Severe and High Fatigue Zones 38% Reduction after full implementation of FMS Monthly performance Feb 2013 to Feb 2014 Mining & Plant Engineering: ~280 persons Reduction of ~600 man-hours/month worked in fatigue risk zones Total Hours Worked in Severe, High and Significant Fatigue Zones 51% Reduction of discretionary hours worked in fatigue zones after full implementation of FMS 3 months prior and after FMS implemented: Sept-Nov 2013 compared to Dec-Feb 2014 Plant Production: ~220 persons Reduction of ~280 man-hours/month worked in fatigue risk zones HPI & LTI Incidents 35% Reduction of incidents based on M- tons Ore/Waste hauled Comparing 2013 to 2012 All Mine Workers: Pit #1, Pit #2 3.6 incidents per 10 M-tons of earth moved in 2012 vs. 2.4 incidents per 10 M- tons in 2012 Attendance 3% Improvement Jan-Nov, 2013 All Shift Workers Nets 5 additional heads per shift Compliance to Countermeasures 98% Acknowledged fatigue status after receiving FMS alert notification Jun, 2013 - Jan, 2014 All personnel active on FMS to at least Step 3 73% currently accept countermeasures within 1 hour of alert notification 2 of 11

Performance Indicator Improvement Period Measured Groups Measured Benefit Survey Results 90% believe managing fatigue improves health; 68% understand and can manage fatigue level. 11 Nov 10 Dec, 2013 Plant Production ~ 220 operators 72% believe that a Fatigue Monitoring system improves safety and performance. Detailed survey results below Detail information for each Performance Indicator is provided in the next section. 3. Detail Results 3.1 Total Fatigue Risk Hours Worked Two groups were tracked before and after implementing FMS: - Mining and Plant engineering groups consisting of ~280 employees - Plant production operators consisting of ~220 employees FMS has been implemented in a 4 step process across each department at the mine. The 4 steps are: - Step 1: FMS Fatigue System training and activating trained personnel on FMS - Step 2: Monitoring employees on FMS while establishing alertness baseline - Step 3: Activating SMS Alerts and Training FMS Countermeasures - Step 4: Activation of SMS Alert time intervals and Alert SMS Escalation sequence Mining and Plant Engineering The first graph represents the monthly trend of hours worked in High or Severe fatigue risk status over the last year. Data shows hours in excess of 180 per 100 man-hours worked per month prior to May 2013. After full implementation of FMS, which included the alert notification escalations, there is a 38% reduction in fatigue hours worked in the 12 months since Feb, 2013. We continue to see a decline of fatigue hours in the 9 months since April. 3 of 11

Hours Worked in Fatigue / Month 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 Mine/Plant Engineering High Fatigue Risk Exposure Hours/100 Man-Months Severe High Fatigue Full FMS Implementation FMS supports Engineering's effort to reduce Fatigue risk: 38% reduction in hours worked in HIGH Fatigue Risk since full implementation in May 2013 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Plant Production Operators The next results involved measuring the Plant Production group 3 months prior and 3 months after full implementation of FMS fatigue system. The Plant production group was trained on FMS in early 2013. FMS alerts were activated for this group on Nov, 2013. They started receiving alerts and getting countermeasures. The Plant Production supervisors and managers completed training on FMS in June and July and the group was fully implemented on all the elements of FMS for everyone in the group by the end of Nov. The results are shown below: 4 of 11

Discussion: The overall improvement for the Plant Production represents a 12% reduction of hours worked during high fatigue zones which includes Severe, High and Significant fatigue status. This improvement was observed immediately following the full implementation of FMS system. This is equivalent of 1% of total hours worked by all 220 operators not being worked while fatigued. Given that there is a base of 5% Significant Fatigue hours built into the Plant production shift schedule, this improvement actually represents nearly 51% reduction on discretionary fatigue hours. For the engineering groups, the 280 operators average about 180 working hours per month generating 46K man-hours per month. While the overall number of man-hours increased after FMS implementation, the number of hours worked during fatigue exposure zones dropped by 600 man-hours per month. Average monthly reduction of hours worked in fatigue zones has been reduced from 160 hours to 100 hours per 100 man-months worked. 3.2 HPI & LTI Incidents The graph below compares all of the recorded HPI and LTI incidents between 2012 and 2013 that occurred at the mine. The results below represent the incident rates per million tons of earth moved between the 2 years. Incidents / M-tons Hauled While the actual total number of incidents was the same between 2012 and 2013, production increased by 54% over 2012. This represents a 35% reduction of incidents for every million tons of ore and waste moved at the mine. Discussion: Mine HPI, LTI Incident Rate per M-ton of Ore/Waste Moved 0.50 2013 showed 35% fewer 0.40 incidents for each M-ton of Ore and Waste hauled from the pits 0.30 0.37 0.20 0.24 0.10 0.00 2012 2013 While the mine has undertaken a number of safety campaigns over the last two years, the most significant and recent of these has been the implementation of FMS Fatigue 5 of 11

Management system. The main effort on FMS implementation began in 4 th quarter of 2012 and focused on fatigue and FMS training for the 1200 mine employees and contractors over the following 9 months. While 55% of the 1100 employees of the mine have fully implemented FMS to date, FMS system is currently monitoring and sending alerts to 1400 employees and contractors with a target of 2200 by end April of 2014. Currently, there remain about 800 contractors to be trained and added to FMS system. 3.3 Attendance The graph below shows a continuous improvement in the relative attendance trend since the beginning of 2013 as the mine focussed on fatigue training and FMS implementation. The increase in attendance is directly correlated to the reduction of absenteeism over the same period. As employees begin to understand they have non-punitive recourse for addressing their tiredness and fatigue at work, their motivation to come to work increases. The desire to be at work to achieve a purpose and receive monetary reward overcomes the tendency to skip work despite feeling tired or not having gotten sufficient rest. This makes attendance (absenteeism) a good indicator of the effectiveness of fatigue training. The graph shows a positive trend in night shift attendance resulting in a 3% improvement over the year since beginning of 2013. A 3% reduction of absenteeism for a compliment of 170 employee night shift is equivalent to 5 extra personnel, available to operate equipment, increase fix/break capacity, or provide relief operators for fatigue and regular breaks. We stress relative because these attendance calculations are based on the percentage of person registering an Entry record on the Honeywell system on their scheduled day against the highest number of Entry records captured for any scheduled day of the month. We selected night shift as it enables us to isolate shift workers from the normal day workers. This method also neutralizes the effect of normal turnover on a given shift. The method always looks at the relative number of persons assigned to a shift on any given month. This method includes all personnel assigned to any shift across all sections of the mine. 6 of 11

3.4 Countermeasure Compliance A key element for the implementation of FMS is to ensure that the participants are actually acknowledging the alerts and signing up for the countermeasures. The graph below shows the progress of countermeasure compliance since June, 2013 as well as the increase in alerts as a result of adding mine personnel to FMS. Discussion: As of Jan 2014, mine employees active on FMS system were complying 98% after receiving a FMS alert requiring them to report to a FMS unit. The target response time after receiving an alert SMS is 1 hour. After the 1 hour, the SMS begin to escalate per the following schedule: - After 1 hour; escalation #1 to worker s supervisor - After 30 min later, escalation #2 to supervisor s manager - After 30 min later, escalation #3 to manager s section manager - After 1 hour later, escalation #4 to manager s department head - After 2 hours later, escalation #5 to mine General Manager In June 2013, primarily only the engineering groups were fully implemented on FMS and the 280 engineers were maintaining 75% compliance rate on the 750 actionable SMS s. However, as more departments were added to the mix, the compliance rate dropped as they were learning to comply with FMS alerts. Today, over 1000 mine employees are maintaining a 73% compliance rate against the 2300 actionable SMS s which indicate a persons has entered a fatigue zone. 7 of 11

3.5 Survey Results We had the opportunity to survey the Plant production group after receiving FMS training but before full implementation. The Plant production section has been being monitored on FMS system but with full implementation, the 220 Plant personnel were included in notifications, escalations, and access to customized countermeasures. 60% of Plant production personnel already have established a BLT alertness baseline. We were able to collect 168 surveys from the Plant operators. The key results are posted below. Adjustment to Shift Pattern? 60% 50% 52% 16% 0% 4% 7% Poorly Getting Slightly Well by 21% Very Well How Often Do You Nap on the Job? 32% 36% 14% 0% 5% 13% Questions: How well adjusted are you to your current shift schedule? How often do you take naps while on the job? 60% 50% 0% How Do You Prepare for Night Shift? 54% 18% 16% Wake Wake Normal/Stay Normal/Nap Awake Before Work 7% Stay Up Up Late 2 Late/Sleep Nights/Sleep Late Late 5% Other 60% 50% 0% Lifestyle Training for Shiftwork? 19% Did Not Have 48% Need More 33% Had Enough Questions: What do you normally do before the first night shift? What do you think about training on how to better adjust to a shiftwork lifestyle to make it easier to cope with the special challenges of shiftwork schedules? 8 of 11

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 0% Understanding / Managing Fatigue Levels Yes No Not Sure 90% 4% 5% Understanding Fatigue Can Improve Health? 72% 67% 68% 13% 15% 15% 18% Fatigue Monitoring Improves Safety/Perfromance? Fatigue Monitoring Can Help Manage Fatigue? 11% 21% Do You Understand Your Fatigue Level? Questions: Do you think that understanding your fatigue level can help you improve your overall health? Do you think that an alertness/fatigue monitoring system would increase awareness of job safety and performance? Do you think that an alertness/fatigue monitoring system would give you the ability to manage your fatigue level while on your shift? Do you think you have understanding of your fatigue levels and have the ability to manage it properly while on your shift? Discussion: The graphs above do not include all of the questions but the selected ones show how the employees view fatigue at work and how they view fatigue monitoring systems. The main conclusions reflected include: 73% say they are Well or Very Well adjusted to the current shift pattern 1/3 of employees say that they nap on the job once per week or more often 72% of shift workers do not adequately prepare correctly for their first night shift 2/3 of employees have not had life style training for shift work or would like more 90% of employee believe that managing fatigue can improve their health 72 % of employees feel that a fatigue monitoring system improves safety and performance 2/3 of employees feel that fatigue monitoring system helps them manage their fatigue 2/3 of employees feel they understand their fatigue and can manage it at work 9 of 11

3.6 Alertness Test Validation As a result of the mine employees being on FMS system and having established their alertness test baselines, they have generated 18,000 data points at various fatigue status zones. The data points were from 536 employees with established baselines over a period of 2 years. The majority of tests were taken while the participants were at normal fatigue status. About 2000 alertness tests were taken while the employees were defined at Significant fatigue status. All tests were compared against the employee s baseline value to normalize the results. The bar graphs at the bottom of the chart indicate the number of test taken during each hour of the day. The low number of tests taken between 2300 and 0400 reduces the statistical significance of the data but all other hours of the day show a very strong statistical significance. The graph shows a very clear difference in employee s alertness performance once FMS identifies a person in Significant fatigue status. During day shift, a person s alertness results show to be as much as to below their non-fatigue status. Also the data shows that even for night shift hours, operators score 15% to lower against their non-fatigue alertness. This conclusively demonstrates that employees experience lower cognitive and response time performance when FMS identifies them in Significant fatigue status. Percent of Balseline Value 1 1 1 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Comparison of Avg BLT Scores by Fatigue Status 2K (12%) 14K (87%) Normal Significant Alertness test performance shows to lower when FMS identified a person in 'Significant' fatigue status 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 1 2 3 4 Shift Hour 5 6 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 TEST VOLUME 4. Benefits Realisation Follow Up As mentioned in the original Benefits Realization Plan, there we will have the opportunity to perform a post survey to verify the impact of fully implementing FMS on the Plant Production personnel. It is optimal to ensure that Plant Production operators have opportunity to effectively Version: 1.10 Updated: 27032014 10 of 11

use FMS system for 3 months prior to collecting the post survey. This will provide an accurate evaluation on how using FMS impacts the employees fatigue management. DOCUMENT VERSION CONTROL Version Update summary By 0.0 Original Submission Marcus Wichmann 1.0 Final Benefits Period Update Marcus Wichmann 1.1 Final Benefits Period with Updated Survey Results Marcus Wichmann Note: version control is such that 0.0 = first document. 0.1 = minor adjustments and so forth; a major number change e.g. 1.0 implies that the document has had an approval. Version: 1.10 Updated: 27032014 11 of 11