From a safety and security standpoint, petrochemical organizations have always been under a microscope. Given the industry's importance on both a geopolitical and environmental stage, the heightened level of scrutiny is understandable. The critical nature of the end product also ensures these industries are highly regulated, and each new saber rattle from a leading oil-producing nation or news-generating accident sends shock waves that ripple across global commodity markets and regulatory bodies alike.

One of the most pressing concerns facing the E&P industry, however, comes not from external forces but from within organizations. In today's "do more with less" economy, employee fatigue is on the rise and can have a significant negative effect on business. From an increase in unanticipated employee absences to serious accidents, fatigue can damage profitability, productivity, and safety. As a result, mitigating employee fatigue has become a priority for many oil and gas professionals. In some instances it is even compulsory.

Background

Employee fatigue programs revolve around the concept of fitness for duty. Studies have shown that working while fatigued is roughly equivalent to working while under the influence of alcohol. Judgment is impaired, corners are cut, and the crisp focus and attention to detail that is necessary in this field can be compromised.

Although there are many sources of fatigue, there are certain working conditions or operational states that can significantly increase fatigue risk. Individuals who work overnight shifts, for example, operate in a manner that runs counter to the body's natural wake and sleep cycle, also known as the circadian rhythm. When these natural patterns are disrupted or when work schedules lack consistently planned rest periods, fatigue becomes a factor. In industries where entire communities could potentially be placed in harm's way through the actions of fatigued workers, the need to mitigate this issue is most acute.

One of the first energy sector industries to tackle this issue head-on was the nuclear power industry. In 2008, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) defined new safety standards to enhance existing programs at nuclear reactors across the country, including a regulation designed to mitigate the risk of workers being unfit for duty due to fatigue. This regulation addresses several safety concerns, from drug and alcohol use to workforce scheduling, to help ensure employees are alert, focused, and unimpaired while working.

The NRC regulation is relatively complex and addresses different rules for different operational states of the plant as well as different roles within the operational environment. It also is something of a "living" regulation, with refinements and enhancements already under debate. Despite its intricacies, however, it does serve as a backdrop for comparing and contrasting the rules that are emerging within the oil and gas industries.

Employee fatigue reduces performance and increases the risk of accidents.

Fatigue risk mitigation

In April 2010, the American Petroleum Institute issued an initial set of fatigue risk mitigation guidelines under the heading Recommend Practice 755 (RP 755). The guidelines were developed in response to heightened concerns about fatigue's impact on employee productivity, morale, and safety, and they represent a significant first step towards self-governance among the petroleum industry. Federal mandates could still follow, but the industry's demonstrated ability to develop and adhere to effective fatigue risk mitigation strategies can go a long way toward preventing further oversight.

RP 755's guidelines differ from policies and regulations affecting other industries, as the policies are tailored to the unique conditions of petroleum facilities. The rule also defines ways to remain in compliance by offering distinct guidelines for maximum work durations and minimum breaks. Like the NRC regulation, RP 755 also is "subject to periodic assessments of its effectiveness" and consequently, it will likely change at some point in the future as the associated practices are reviewed, evaluated, and refined.

Compliance through automation

As with most mission-critical processes, automation delivers a degree of efficiency and consistency: consistent application of rules, consistent ways to prevent and contend with violations, and consistent ways for evaluating fatigue practices and ensuring they continually meet business and safety needs. This closed-loop strategy is ideally suited to a data-centric, automated approach.

Although automation is at the center of a fatigue risk mitigation strategy, successfully implementing fatigue management typically requires three fundamental elements.

At the heart is the time and attendance system. These systems have transcended the simplistic "punch-in/punchout" role for which they have been historically linked and now offer a broad array of granular information on employee activities, hours worked, what pay rates they were entitled to, what projects they worked on, and a host of other information.

In a recent survey, respondents agreed or strongly agreed that workers are more fatigued and overworked than in previous years. The most commonly cited reason was low head count. (Graph courtesy of WorkForce Software)

Another component is scheduling, which helps define who is going to work on what project, when they are going to start and stop, and other vital pieces of information. This is the stage in the process where most of the fatigue management alerts and alarms will be presented, preventing a manager from trying to schedule an employee who is fatigued or could be pushed into a fatigued state as a result of working a specific shift or shifts.

Finally, the rules engine, which tracks the rules, regulations, and policies established to mitigate fatigue, creates a snapshot of individual work routines and associated potential for fatigue and proactively contacts managers, HR, or any other defined personnel when a fatigue mitigation policy is in jeopardy of being violated.

Working in unison, these elements create a dynamic environment that safeguards organizations by proactively avoiding worker fatigue in several areas. For example, if an employee tries to begin his or her shift without having the minimum required hours of rest between shifts, an alert can be sent to the manager who can determine if a replacement employee can be found or if a waiver needs to be issued. The system also can be configured to deny the employee the ability to "clock in" and begin a shift until the minimum rest hours have been recorded. Additionally, managers can be alerted that scheduling specific employees can lead to fatigue risk and be prompted to schedule alternative employees in their place. Critically, an automated solution also will capture and store each of these interactions and decision points, creating a detailed audit trail that enables managers to confidently provide proof of compliance when required.

Avoiding fatigue, enhancing the business

Mitigating the risks associated with employee fatigue enhances the safety of workers, operations, and communities and delivers tangible, bottom-line benefits. A well-rested workforce is more alert and productive and consumes fewer healthcare services.

Comments