SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AT KRETEK 2 BRIDGE
WORK IN BANTUL REGENCY
Isyraq Nashrullah Arifin, Wateno Oetomo, Laksono Djoko Nugroho
Universitas 17 Agustus 1945
Surabaya, Indonesia
Email: [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
|
KEYWORDS Bridge,
Occupational Safety and Health, HIRADC. |
ABSTRACT Construction work includes the implementation
of construction work and the community organizing the construction work
itself. The implementation of this construction work must comply with the
provisions regarding engineering, occupational safety and health, labor
protection, and local environmental regulations to ensure the realization of
an orderly implementation of construction work. The construction of the
Kretek 2 Bridge in Bantul Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta Province has
its own challenges, because the location of the bridge is in an area prone to
earthquakes and liquefaction or ground movement. With so many workers on this
very high-risk project, there is a high probability of an accident occurring.
The purpose of the study was to analyze (1) the risky work that could occur
in bridge construction work, (2) the work that has the highest possible risk,
(3) risk control, (4) the amount of investment costs required. The method
used is the HIRADC method. The results of the study were (1) Risky work that
can occur was a. High level of risk, including drowning, being dragged by the
river current, being hit by heavy equipment maneuvers and falling from a
height. b. Moderate risk level, including being crushed by formwork, falling
material, scratched hands. c. Low level of risk, including landslides, heavy
equipment maneuvers, iron puncture. (2) Work that has the highest possible
risk is Pile Cap Excavation Work, Work Floor Work and Pier Head Ironing Work.
(3) Risk control in bridge work consists of: Using a boat when measuring in
rivers, Conducting briefings before starting activities, Using PPE life vests
and placing life ring buoys on boats, Installing signs and placing officers
in areas that intersect with roads, Installing guardrail of the project area,
installing scaffolding as a working platform and inspecting its
feasibility,� communicating hazards
through signs, conducting refresh training for workers. (4) The investment
cost required for implementing K3 on the Kretek 2 Bridge work in Bantul
Regency was Rp. 6,545,998,310 or 1.795% of the contract value. |
INTRODUCTION
Indonesia
is one of the developing countries, development and development in the
construction sector have increased. The Ministry of Public Works and Public
Housing (PUPR) through the Directorate General of Wildlife Development is
completing the construction of the Kretek 2 Bridge located in Bantul,
Yogyakarta Special Region (DIY). The bridge with a total length of 2.01 km
spans the Opak River and connects Tirtohargo Village with Parangtritis Village.
This bridge is part of the 1,604 km Long Java South Coast Road which is famous
for its coastal tourism area that stretches from Banten to East Java.�
The
construction of the Kretek 2 Bridge has its own challenges because the location
of the bridge is in an area prone to earthquakes and liquefaction or soil movement.
With a lot of workers on the project that can be said to be very high-risk, it
is not impossible to the possible risk of accidents. In accordance with the
requirements of OHSAS 18001, organizations must obtain procedures regarding
hazard identification, risk assessment, and determining control or HIRADC for
short. This whole process is called risk management. HIRADC is a method used to
identify and analyze potential hazards and provide risk assessments that will
later be considered regarding the level of danger.
To
find out more about the risk of accidents or dangers that will occur and the
level of possibility, research is needed that aims to:
1.Analyzing risky work, 2. Analyze the work that
has the highest possible risk, 3. Analyzing ways of risk control, 4. Analyzing
the large investment costs required for the application of K3 on the Kretek 2
Bridge work in Bantul Regency���
RESEARCH METHOD
Occupational Health and Safety (K3)
Occupational Safety and Health (K3) is a condition or factor that affects
or may affect the health and safety of workers or other workers (including
temporary workers and contractors), visitors, or any person in the workplace.
(Ramli, 2013)
Risk
Risk can be associated with the possibility of unintended adverse
consequences or uncertainty. This is a condition that causes the growth of
risks stemming from various activities and may affect the cost, schedule and
quality of projects (Darmawi, 2008)
Danger
�� Danger is a source, situation, or
action that could potentially cause human accidents or injuries, damage, or
other disturbances. According to Ramli (2010) hazards come from the following
five factors: 1.Mechanical Hazard, 2.Electrical Hazard, 3.Physical Hazard,
4.Biological Hazard, 5.Chemical Hazard.
Work Accidents
�� According to the Decree of the
Director General of Industrial Relations Development and Manpower Supervision
Number 84 of 1998 states that the sources and types of accidents are as
follows: 1.Sources of work accidents, 2. Types of accidents
HIRADC (Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Determining Control)
�� Ministerial Regulation Number
21/PRT/M/2019 article 3 paragraph 1 states "Every service user and service
provider in the implementation of construction services must apply SMKK".
Identifying hazards, conducting risk assessments, and conducting risk control
are important requirements in the implementation of SMKK.
Data Analysis Techniques
Determination of Respondent Sample
�� The determination of the sample of
respondents used is intentional sampling
or purposive sampling (Andriani, 2017). Purposive sampling is sampling
whose sample members are selected intentionally based on respondents' knowledge
of the risks of implementing K3 work on Kretek Bridge 2 in Bantul Regency.
Probability Analysis
������ Probability is a measure of the
likelihood that a future event will occur. Probability only has a value between
0 and 1. The scale used for this method uses a likert
scale, with a range of numbers 1-5 as in the following table:
Table 1 Possibilities with a
Likert Scale
|
Information |
Measurements
with Likert
Scale |
Criterion |
|
|
Quantitative
Criteria |
Qualitative
Criteria |
||
|
Very Rare |
1 |
≤ 20 |
Less occurrence, only under
certain conditions |
|
Sometimes It Happens |
2 |
21-40 |
Sometimes occurs in conditions certain |
|
May Happen |
3 |
41-60 |
Occurs under certain conditions |
|
Frequent |
4 |
61-80 |
Frequent occurrence of every condition |
|
Almost Certainly Happened |
5 |
81-100 |
Always happens in every condition |
����������� Source: Ramli (2013)
2. Impact Analysis with Likert Scale
�������� Impact is an event that
exerts an influence, both adverse and beneficial influence. The impact in
question is something that will be received or obtained by individual accident
victims or companies communally.
Table 2 Impact
with a Likert Scale
|
Information |
Measurements with Likert Scale |
Criterion |
|
|
Quantitative Criteria |
Qualitative Criteria |
||
|
Insignificant |
1 |
≤ 20 |
Not so significant losses, minor injuries (bad
influences can be ignored) |
|
Small |
2 |
21-40 |
Minor injuries; Requires P3K treatment (directly can be handled at the
scene);�� moderate
material losses. |
|
Keep |
3 |
41-60 |
Moderate injuries; Loss of working days; �Requires
medical treatment; Material losses are considerable |
|
Heavy |
4 |
61-80 |
Major injuries; Defects
result in defects or complete loss of body function,� large material losses. |
|
Disaster |
5 |
81-100 |
Death,
huge material losses |
Source: Ramli (2013)
3. Severity Index
Analysis
������ The
severity index is used to determine the significant risks to both items, namely
probability and impact. Severity index is calculated using the equation
�Severity Index Formula �for Probability:
�������������������������������������������������������������� (1)
where:
SI(p)= Severity Index for
Probability
ai����������� = Assessment
constant
xi������ = Respondent
Frequency
i= 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... n
x1, x 2, x 3, x 4, x5 are respondents'
frequency responses
x�1= � Frequency of respondents "Very
Rare," then a1= 1
x2����� = Frequency of respondents "Sometimes It
Happens," then a�2 �= 2
x3����� = Respondent frequency "May Occur,"
then a�3 �= 3
x4����� = Frequency of respondents "Frequent
Occurrence," then a�4 �= 4
x5����� = Respondent frequency "Almost Certainly
Happens," then a�5 �= 5
�Severity Index Formula �for Impact:
���������������������������������������������������������� (2)
where:
SI(i)= Severity Index for Impact
ai������ = Assessment constant
xi����� = Respondent
Frequency
i= 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..., n
x1, x 2, x 3, x 4, x5 are respondents'
frequency responses
x�1= � Frequency of respondents
"Insignificant," then a1= 1
x2����� = Frequency of respondents "Small,"
then a�2 �= 2
x3����� = Frequency of respondents
"Moderate," then a�3 �= 3
x4����� = Frequency of respondents "Weight,"
then a�4 �= 4
x5����� = Frequency of respondents
"Disaster," then a�5 �= 5
4. Assessment of Employment Risk Level
������ After obtaining the results of
the Severity Index and the level of
classification, the matrix value is obtained in accordance with the provisions
that have been applied as follows:
Table 3 Category Matrix Possibilities
|
Category |
SI (%) |
Possible Matrix Level |
|
Almost Certainly Happened |
81-100 |
5 |
|
Frequent |
61-80 |
4 |
|
May Happen |
41-60 |
3 |
|
Sometimes It Happens |
21-40 |
2 |
|
Very Rare |
≤ 20 |
1 |
Source: Ramli (2013)
Table 4 Impact Matrix Categories
|
Category |
SI (%) |
Impact Matrix Level |
|
Disaster |
81-100 |
5 |
|
Heavy |
61-80 |
4 |
|
Keep |
41-60 |
3 |
|
Small |
21-40 |
2 |
|
Insignificant |
≤20 |
1 |
Source: Ramli (2013)
������ Once converted into probability
and impact matrix levels, the two values are multiplied to plot on the matrix,
so that they will get the risk level. The risk level in question is the level
of risk obtained from the calculation of the probability that will occur and
the amount of influence that will be received. The purpose of this probability
and impact matrix is to find out which risks are likely to occur and have a big
impact on the project with the scale used is a matrix of values 1-25.
������ To find out the measure of
risk, probability and impact can be plotted in a risk matrix, using the
equation:
R = P x I (3)������������������������������
where:
R : Leveling Risk
P : Probability
I : Impact
������ The result of the matrix is to determine the risk level from each
identification of possible risks that can occur. Then from the known risk
level, it will also be taken into account in planning its handling on the risk
response.
Determining Control
������ The next
stage is to determine the controls used to reduce or eliminate the impact of
the risk of imminent harm in a project. Control is carried out based on five
levels as follows:
1. Elimination
The method of elimination is a method of risk control that if possible
should eliminate or completely remove processes or materials that may cause the
presence of harm
2. Substitution �����������
The substitution method is a method of controlling hazards by replacing
work or tools with others that have less danger
3. Engineering Control Methods of
hazard control that protect workers from hazards such as providing the
placement of materials, materials, signs, checking tools and maintenance of
tools and materials to be used
4. Administrative
(Administrative) Control of risks and hazards in the form of regulations
related to occupational safety and health made such as conducting periodic K3
inspections, toolbox meetings, conducting training, safety morning, SOPs and
supervision�������
5.Personal Protective Equiepment
(PPE) The most recent hazard control is to use personal protective equipment or
PPE. This latest hazard control is less effective but must be done for smooth
running and safety of work on the condition that you use complete personal
protective equipment to minimize workers from being injured
Develop HIRADC (Hazard
Identification, Risk Assessment and Determining Control)
������ After
collecting various data from hazard identification, risk level assessment and
risk control, then compiling a HIRADC able which will be used to determine the
value of the risk level of danger that occurs in the bridge pillar structure
work as a research object. In able HIRADC made more detailed along with the
implementation method to get more detailed results.
Investment
Costs of K3 Implementation
�������� After observation of the
application of K3 control, then the calculation of the investment cost needs of
the occupational safety and health management system
(SMK3) was carried out based on the Circular Letter of the Minister of Public
Works Number: 66 / SE / M / 2015, concerning investment costs for the
Implementation of the K3 Construction System in the Field of Public Works.
�������� The investment costs required for theimplementation of K3 on the Kretek 2 Bridge work in Bantul Regency include:
1. RKK Setup����������������������������������������������������
2. Socialization, Promotion and training����������
3. Work Protective Equipment and Personal Protective Equipment
4. Insurance and Licensing�������������������������������
5. Construction Safety Personnel����������������������
6. Health facilities and infrastructure���������������
7. Health Programs�������������������������������������������
8. Prevention of Covid-19���������������������������������
9. Handling Covid-19���������������������������������������
10. Signs������������������������������������������������������������
11. Consultation with a
Construction Safety expert�
12. Miscellaneous Related
to K3 Risk Control
13. Industrial Hygiene
and Environmental Monitoring��������
14. General and
Operational
ANALYSIS
Results of Identification of Risky Work
�������� The risk identification stage
is based on the standard of procedure (SOP)
of each job. Starting from the implementation stage, the tools used, and the
materials used.
Table 5 Results
�of Identification �of Risky Work
|
No. |
�Jobs at
Risk |
Danger |
|
1 |
Pile Cap Excavation Work |
|
|
1.1 |
Measurement |
a. Danger from the attack of a poisonous animal |
|
b. Mired |
||
|
c. Struck by lightning |
||
|
d. Drowning dragged by the current of the river |
||
|
1.2 |
Excavation work |
a. Landslide |
|
b. Machine maneuvering |
||
|
2 |
Work Floor Work |
|
|
2.1 |
Installation of stakes |
a. Hand hit by hammer |
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
||
|
c. Material fall |
||
|
2.2 |
Cleaning and tillage with heavy equipment (Dozzer,
excavator, vibro) |
a. Exposed to machine maneuvers |
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
||
|
c. Material fall |
||
|
2.3 |
Heap and compaction work |
a. Exposed to machine maneuvers |
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
||
|
c. Material fall |
||
|
3 |
Pile cap fixing work |
|
|
3.1 |
Elevation measurement |
a. Exposed to flakes of iron material |
|
b. Fall of iron material |
||
|
3.2 |
Installation of stakes |
a. Hand hit by hammer |
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
||
|
c. Material fall |
||
|
4 |
Pillar Fixing Work |
|
|
4.1 |
Scaffolding mounting |
a. Scratched hand |
|
b. Stuck |
||
|
c. Crushed by tools and materials |
||
|
d. Falling from a height |
||
|
5 |
Pier Head Cleaning Work |
|
|
5.1 |
Elevation measurement |
a. Hands scratched iron |
|
b. Pinched hands |
||
|
c. Falling from a height |
||
|
6 |
Iron Fabrication Work |
|
|
6.1 |
Iron cutting with barbender |
a. Electrocuted |
|
b. Fingers of the hand cut off the gear |
||
|
c. Iron punctured |
||
|
d. Pinched hands |
||
|
7 |
Foundry Works |
|
|
7.1 |
Casting using mixer truck |
a. Mired Mixer Truck |
|
b. Concrete pump mired and rolled over |
||
|
c. Falling from a height |
||
|
8 |
Formwork Installation Work |
|
|
8.1 |
Installation of bridge pillar formwork |
a. Hands scratched iron |
|
b. Hand pinched formwork |
||
|
c. Exposed to manual work tools |
||
|
d. Stricken with formwork |
||
|
e. Dropped from a height |
||
|
9 |
Formwork Demolition Work |
|
|
9.1 |
Formwork Demolition |
a. Hands scratched iron |
|
b. Hand pinched formwork |
||
|
c. Exposed to manual work tools |
||
|
d. Falling from a height |
����������� �� �Source: RKK Paket Lot 3 Jembatan Kretek 2 in Bantul Regency
Table 4 shows the results of the
identification of the Risk of Kretek Bridge Construction 2 in Bantul Regency, which
consists of 9 occupational risks, namely (1) pile cap excavation work, (2) Work
floor work, (3) Pile cap fixing work, (4) Pillar cleaning work, (5) Pier head fixing work, (6) Iron fabrication work, (7) Foundry work, (8)
Formwork installation work and (9) Formwork demolition work.
Results of the Identification of Risky Work Questionnaire
�������� The assessment was given by
20 respondents who had been determined based on the experience and thoughts of
each respondent.
Table 6 Results of the Pile Cap
Excavation Work Risk Level Questionnaire
|
No. |
Work |
Likelihood |
Total |
Impact |
Total |
||||||||
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
SJT |
KT |
DT |
ST |
HPT |
TS |
K |
S |
T |
B |
||||
|
1 |
Pile Cap Excavation Work |
||||||||||||
|
1.1 |
Measurement |
||||||||||||
|
a. Danger from the attack of a poisonous animal |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
5 |
9 |
20 |
|
|
b. Mired |
0 |
2 |
2 |
9 |
7 |
20 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Struck by lightning |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
10 |
20 |
|
|
d. Drowning dragged by the current of the river |
4 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
20 |
|
|
1.2 |
Excavation work |
||||||||||||
|
a. Landslide |
8 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
10 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Machine maneuvering |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
7 |
0 |
20 |
|
Source: Data processing results
Table 7 Results of the Work Floor Work Work Risk Level Questionnaire
|
No. |
Work |
Likelihood |
Total |
Impact |
Total |
||||||||
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
SJT |
KT |
DT |
ST |
HPT |
TS |
K |
S |
T |
B |
||||
|
2 |
Work Floor Work |
||||||||||||
|
2.1 |
Installation of stakes |
||||||||||||
|
a. Hand hit by hammer |
8 |
6 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
8 |
7 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Material fall |
8 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
8 |
9 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
d. Drowning dragged by the current of the river |
8 |
6 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
2.2 |
Cleaning and tillage with heavy equipment (Dozzer, excavator, vibro) |
||||||||||||
|
a. Exposed to machine maneuvers |
7 |
7 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Material fall |
9 |
5 |
|
2 |
0 |
20 |
9 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
2.3 |
Heap and compaction work |
||||||||||||
|
a. Exposed to machine
maneuvers |
9 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
9 |
6 |
|
1 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Material fall |
8 |
7 |
|
0 |
0 |
20 |
9 |
9 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
|
����������������������� Source:
Data processing results
Table 8 Pile Cap Fixing Job Risk
Level Questionnaire Results
|
No. |
Work |
Likelihood |
Total |
Impact |
Total |
||||||||
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
SJT |
KT |
DT |
ST |
HPT |
TS |
K |
S |
T |
B |
||||
|
3 |
Pile Cap
Fixing Work |
||||||||||||
|
3.1 |
Elevation measurement |
||||||||||||
|
a. Exposed to flakes of iron material |
8 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Fall of iron material |
9 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
8 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
3.2 |
Installation of stakes |
||||||||||||
|
a. Hand hit by hammer |
8 |
5 |
|
3 |
0 |
20 |
12 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
8 |
5 |
|
1 |
0 |
18 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Material fall |
9 |
7 |
|
0 |
0 |
20 |
9 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
|
����������������������� Source:
Data processing results
Table 9 Results of the Questionnaire on the Risk Level of Pillar Fixing Work
|
No. |
Work |
Likelihood |
Total |
Impact |
Total |
||||||||
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
SJT |
KT |
DT |
ST |
HPT |
TS |
K |
S |
T |
B |
||||
|
4 |
Pillar
Fixing Work |
||||||||||||
|
4.1 |
Scaffolding mounting |
||||||||||||
|
a. Scratched hand |
7 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
20 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Pinched hands |
7 |
7 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
20 |
8 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Crushed by tools and materials |
8 |
5 |
|
1 |
0 |
20 |
12 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
d. Falling from a height |
8 |
7 |
|
1 |
0 |
20 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
8 |
0 |
20 |
|
����������������������� Source:
Data processing results
Table 10 Pier Head Fixture Work
Risk Level Questionnaire Results
|
No. |
Work |
Likelihood |
Total |
Impact |
Total |
||||||||
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
SJT |
KT |
DT |
ST |
HPT |
TS |
K |
S |
T |
B |
||||
|
5 |
Pier Head Cleaning Work |
||||||||||||
|
5.1 |
Elevation measurement |
||||||||||||
|
a. Hands scratched iron |
8 |
6 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Pinched hands |
6 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
20 |
8 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Falling from a height |
9 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
9 |
20 |
|
����������������������� Source:
Data processing results
Table 11 Results of the Iron Fabrication Work Risk Level Questionnaire
|
No. |
Work |
Likelihood |
Total |
Impact |
Total |
||||||||
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
SJT |
KT |
DT |
ST |
HPT |
TS |
K |
S |
T |
B |
||||
|
6 |
Iron Fabrication Works |
||||||||||||
|
6.1 |
Iron cutting with barbender |
||||||||||||
|
a. Electrocuted |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
20 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Fingers of the hand cut off the gear |
6 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
0 |
20 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Iron punctured |
8 |
6 |
|
1 |
0 |
20 |
9 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
d. Pinched hands |
5 |
5 |
|
5 |
0 |
20 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
|
����������������������� Source:
Data processing results
Table 12 Results of the Foundry Job Risk Level Questionnaire
|
No. |
Work |
Likelihood |
Total |
Impact |
Total |
||||||||
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
SJT |
KT |
DT |
ST |
HPT |
TS |
K |
S |
T |
B |
||||
|
7 |
Foundry Works |
||||||||||||
|
7.1 |
Casting using mixer truck |
||||||||||||
|
a.Mired mixer truck |
8 |
6 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Concrete pump mired and rolled over |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
20 |
6 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Falling from a height |
10 |
7 |
|
1 |
0 |
20 |
3 |
7 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
20 |
|
����������������������� Source:
Data processing results
Table 13 Results of the Questionnaire
on the Level of Risk of Formwork Installation Work
|
No. |
Work |
Likelihood |
Total |
Impact |
Total |
||||||||
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
SJT |
KT |
DT |
ST |
HPT |
TS |
K |
S |
T |
B |
||||
|
8 |
Formwork Installation Work |
||||||||||||
|
8.1 |
Installation of bridge pillar formwork |
||||||||||||
|
a. Hands scratched iron |
4 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
0 |
20 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Hand pinched formwork |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
20 |
8 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Exposed to manual work tools |
7 |
8 |
|
1 |
0 |
20 |
8 |
8 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
d. Stricken with formwork |
6 |
5 |
|
3 |
0 |
20 |
3 |
7 |
3 |
7 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
e. Dropped from a height |
3 |
3 |
7 |
7 |
0 |
20 |
2 |
6 |
5 |
7 |
0 |
20 |
|
Source: Data
processing results
Table 14 Results
of the Questionnaire on the Level of Risk of Formwork Demolition Work
|
No. |
Work |
Likelihood |
Total |
Impact |
Total |
||||||||
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|||
|
SJT |
KT |
DT |
ST |
HPT |
TS |
K |
S |
T |
B |
||||
|
9 |
Formwork Demolition Work |
||||||||||||
|
9.1 |
Formwork Demolition |
||||||||||||
|
a. Hands scratched iron |
4 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
b. Hand pinched formwork |
3 |
4 |
4 |
9 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
c. Exposed to manual work tools |
3 |
3 |
|
8 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
|
|
d. Falling from a height |
4 |
3 |
|
9 |
0 |
20 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
8 |
0 |
20 |
|
����������������������� Source:
Data processing results
Assessment of the Level of Employment Risk
Table 15 Results of Risk Level
Assessment of �Pile Cap Excavation Work
|
No |
Work |
|
|
SI(p) |
Level Prob. |
|
|
SI (i) |
Level Impact |
Level Risk |
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
||||||||||
|
1 |
Pile Cap Excavation Work |
|||||||||
|
1.1 |
Measurement |
|||||||||
|
a. Danger from the attack of a poisonous animal |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
82 |
100 |
82% |
5 |
Keep |
|
|
b. Mired |
81 |
100 |
81% |
5 |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
Keep |
|
|
c. Struck by lightning |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
84 |
100 |
84% |
5 |
Keep |
|
|
|
d. Drowning dragged by the current of the river |
55 |
100 |
55% |
3 |
78 |
100 |
78% |
4 |
Tall |
|
1.2 |
Excavation work |
|||||||||
|
a. Landslide |
38 |
100 |
38% |
2 |
32 |
100 |
32% |
2 |
Low |
|
|
b. Machine maneuvering |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
55 |
100 |
55% |
4 |
Low |
|
Source: Data
processing results
Table 16 Results of the Assessment
of the Risk Level of Work Floor Work
|
No |
Work |
|
|
SI(p) |
Level Prob. |
|
|
SI (i) |
Level Impact |
Level Risk |
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
||||||||||
|
2 |
Work Floor Work |
|||||||||
|
2.1 |
Installation of stakes |
|||||||||
|
a. Hand hit by hammer |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
Low |
|
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
37 |
100 |
37% |
2 |
Low |
|
|
c. Material fall |
37 |
100 |
37% |
2 |
36 |
100 |
36% |
2 |
Low |
|
|
d. Drowning dragged by the current of the river |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
Low |
|
|
2.2 |
Cleaning and tillage with heavy equipment (Dozzer, excavator, vibro) |
|||||||||
|
a. Exposed to machine maneuvers |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
86 |
100 |
86% |
5 |
Tall |
|
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
Low |
|
|
c. Material fall |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
57 |
100 |
57% |
3 |
Keep |
|
|
2.3 |
Heap and compaction work |
|||||||||
|
a. Exposed to machine
maneuvers |
38 |
100 |
38% |
2 |
82 |
100 |
82% |
5 |
Tall |
|
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
37 |
100 |
37% |
2 |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
Low |
|
|
c. Material fall |
37 |
100 |
37% |
2 |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
Low |
|
Source: Data processing results
Table 17 Pile Cap Fixing Work Risk Level Assessment Results
|
No |
Work |
|
|
SI(p) |
Level Prob. |
|
|
SI (i) |
Level Impact |
Level Risk |
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
||||||||||
|
3 |
Pile Cap Fixing Work |
|||||||||
|
3.1 |
Elevation measurement |
|||||||||
|
a. Exposed to flakes of iron material |
38 |
100 |
38% |
2 |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
Low |
|
|
b. Fall of iron material |
35 |
100 |
35% |
2 |
56 |
100 |
56% |
3 |
Keep |
|
|
3.2 |
Installation of stakes |
|||||||||
|
a. Hand hit by hammer |
42 |
100 |
42% |
3 |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
Keep |
|
|
b. Respiratory disorders |
34 |
90 |
38% |
2 |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
Low |
|
|
c. Material fall |
35 |
100 |
35% |
2 |
45 |
100 |
45% |
3 |
Keep |
|
����������� Source:
Data processing results
Table 18 Results of the Risk
Level Assessment of Pillar Fixing Work
|
No |
Work |
|
|
SI(p) |
Level Prob. |
|
|
SI (i) |
Level Impact |
Level Risk |
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
||||||||||
|
4 |
Pile Cap Fixing Work |
|||||||||
|
4.1 |
Elevation measurement |
|||||||||
|
a. Scratched hand |
43 |
100 |
43% |
3 |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
Keep |
|
|
b. Pinched hands |
42 |
100 |
42% |
3 |
36 |
100 |
36% |
2 |
Keep |
|
|
c. Crushed by tools and materials |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
30 |
100 |
30% |
2 |
Low |
|
|
d. Falling from a height |
38 |
100 |
38% |
2 |
62 |
100 |
62% |
4 |
Keep |
|
����������� Source:
Data processing results
Table 19 Pier Head Cleaning Work Risk Level Assessment Results
|
No |
Work |
|
|
SI(p) |
Level Prob. |
|
|
SI (i) |
Level Impact |
Level Risk |
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
||||||||||
|
5 |
Pier Head Cleaning Work |
|||||||||
|
5.1 |
Elevation measurement |
|||||||||
|
a. Hands scratched iron |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
44 |
100 |
44% |
3 |
Keep |
|
|
b. Pinched hands |
46 |
100 |
46% |
3 |
37 |
100 |
37% |
2 |
Keep |
|
|
c. Falling from a height |
38 |
100 |
38% |
2 |
82 |
100 |
82% |
5 |
Tall |
|
����������� Source:
Data processing results
Table �20 Results of the Risk Level Assessment of Iron Fabrication Work
|
No |
Work |
|
|
SI(p) |
Level Prob. |
|
|
SI (i) |
Level Impact |
Level Risk |
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
||||||||||
|
6 |
Iron Fabrication Works |
|||||||||
|
6.1 |
Elevation measurement |
|||||||||
|
a. Electrocuted |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
49 |
100 |
49% |
3 |
Keep |
|
|
b. Fingers of the hand cut off the gear |
48 |
100 |
48% |
3 |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
Keep |
|
|
c. Iron punctured |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
37 |
100 |
37% |
2 |
Low |
|
|
d. Pinched hands |
50 |
100 |
50% |
3 |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
Keep |
|
����������� Source:
Data processing results
Table 21 Results of the Assessment of the Level of Risk of Foundry Work
|
No |
Work |
|
|
SI(p) |
Level Prob. |
|
|
SI (i) |
Level Impact |
Level Risk |
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
||||||||||
|
7 |
Foundry Works |
|||||||||
|
7.1 |
Casting using mixer truck |
|||||||||
|
a.Mired mixer truck |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
53 |
100 |
53% |
3 |
Keep |
|
|
b. Concrete pump mired and rolled over |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
45 |
100 |
45% |
3 |
Keep |
|
|
c. Falling from a height |
34 |
100 |
34% |
2 |
55 |
100 |
55% |
3 |
Keep |
|
����������� Source:
Data processing results
Table 22 Results
of the assessment of the level of risk of formwork installation
work
|
No |
Work |
|
|
SI(p) |
Level Prob. |
|
|
SI (i) |
Level Impact |
Level Risk |
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
||||||||||
|
8 |
Formwork Installation Work |
|||||||||
|
8.1 |
Installation of bridge pillar formwork |
|||||||||
|
a. Hands scratched iron |
54 |
100 |
54% |
3 |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
Keep |
|
|
b. Pinched hands |
40 |
100 |
40% |
2 |
38 |
100 |
38% |
2 |
Low |
|
|
c. Exposed to manual work tools |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
39 |
100 |
39% |
2 |
Low |
|
|
d. Stricken with formwork |
46 |
100 |
46% |
3 |
54 |
100 |
54% |
3 |
Keep |
|
|
e. Dropped from a height |
58 |
100 |
58% |
3 |
57 |
100 |
57% |
3 |
Keep |
|
Source: Data processing results
Table 23 Results of
the Assessment of the Risk Level of Formwork Demolition Work
|
No |
Work |
|
|
SI(p) |
Level Prob. |
|
|
SI (i) |
Level Impact |
Level Risk |
|
Risks of the Stage of Work |
||||||||||
|
9 |
Formwork Demolition Work |
|||||||||
|
9.1 |
Formwork Demolition |
|||||||||
|
a. Hands scratched iron |
55 |
100 |
55% |
3 |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
Low |
|
|
b. Hand pinched formwork |
59 |
100 |
59% |
3 |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
Low |
|
|
c. Exposed to manual work tools |
59 |
100 |
59% |
3 |
20 |
100 |
20% |
1 |
Low |
|
|
d. Falling from a height |
58 |
100 |
58% |
3 |
56 |
100 |
56% |
3 |
Keep |
|
Source: Data
processing results
Grouping of Employment Risk
Levels
Grouping of Employment Risk Levels
�������� Based on the assessment of
the risk level for each work, the project on the Kretek 2 Bridge construction
project in Bantul Regency
obtained a grouping of high to low risk levels for each work as follows:
Table 24 Grouping of Employment Risk Levels
|
No |
Work |
Job Risk |
Level Prob. ( P ) |
Level Impact ( I ) |
Level Risk (P x I) |
|
Job Risk |
|||||
|
1 |
Pile Cap
Excavation Work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tall |
Drowning
dragged by the current of the river |
3 |
4 |
12 |
|
Keep |
Mired |
5 |
1 |
5 |
|
|
|
Danger
from the attack of a poisonous animal |
1 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
|
Struck by
lightning |
1 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
Low |
Landslide |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
Machine
maneuvering |
1 |
4 |
4 |
|
2 |
Work
Floor Work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tall |
Exposed
to machine maneuvers |
2 |
5 |
10 |
|
Keep |
Material
fall |
2 |
3 |
6 |
|
|
Low |
Hand hit
by hammer |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
Material
fall |
2 |
2 |
4 |
||
|
|
|
Drowning
dragged by the current of the river |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
|
Respiratory
disorders |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
3 |
Pile Cap Fixing Work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep |
Hand hit
by hammer |
3 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
|
Material
fall |
2 |
3 |
6 |
|
|
Low |
Exposed
to flakes of iron material |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
Respiratory
disorders |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
4 |
Pillar
Fixing Work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep |
Scratched
hand |
3 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
|
Pinched
hands |
3 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
|
Dropped
from a height |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
Low |
Crushed
by tools and materials |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
5 |
Pier Head
Cleaning Work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tall |
Dropped
from a height |
2 |
5 |
10 |
|
|
Keep |
Pinched
hands |
3 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
|
Hands
scratched iron |
2 |
3 |
6 |
|
6 |
Iron
Fabrication Works |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep |
Fingers
of the hand cut off the gear |
3 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
|
Electrocuted |
2 |
3 |
6 |
|
|
Low |
Iron
punctured |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
7 |
Foundry
Works |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep |
Mired
mixer truck |
2 |
3 |
6 |
|
|
|
Concrete
pump mired and rolled over |
2 |
3 |
6 |
|
|
|
Dropped
from a height |
2 |
3 |
6 |
|
8 |
Formwork
Installation Work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep |
Crushed
by formwork |
3 |
3 |
9 |
|
|
|
Dropped
from a height |
3 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
|
Hands
scratched iron |
3 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
Low |
Exposed
to manual labor tools |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
9 |
Formwork
Demolition Work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep |
Dropped
from a height |
3 |
3 |
9 |
|
|
Low |
Hands scratched iron |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
Hand pinched formwork |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
Exposed to manual labor tools |
3 |
1 |
3 |
����������� Source:
Data processing results
Based on the grouping
of occupational risk levels, the construction of Kretek Bridge 2 in
Bantul Regency obtained 3 (three) high job risks, 12 (twelve) medium
occupational risks and 9 (nine) low job risks.
Risk Control and Preparation of HIRADC
�������� The next stage is to determine the
control and preparation of the HIRADC table used to reduce or eliminate the
impact of the risk of hazards that will occur on the nine bridge pillar
structure works in the Kretek 2 Bantul Bridge Construction, as follows:
CONCLUSION
Based on the objectives of the study, it can be concluded
that:
The risky work that can occur in
the construction of the Kretek Bridge 2 pillar structure in Bantul Regency is
as follows:
High risk levels include: 1.
Drowning dragged by river currents, 2. Exposed to machine maneuvers and 3.
Dropped from a height
Moderate risk levels include: 1.
Being crushed by formwork, 2. Falling material, 3. Scratched hand, 4. Pinched
hand, 5. Hand hit by hammer, 6. Fingers of hand cut gear, 7. Electrocuted, 8.
Mired mixer truck, 9. Concrete pump mired and rolled over, 10. Mired, 11. Danger
from the attack of a poisonous animal and 12. Struck by lightning
Low risk levels include: 1.
Landslides, 2. Maneuvering heavy equipment, 3. Punctured iron, 4. Exposed to
manual work tools, 5. Crushed tools and materials, 6. Hand pinched formwork, 7.
Exposed to manual work tools, 8. Exposed to flakes of iron material and 9.
Respiratory disorders
In the implementation of
construction, works that have a high potential risk are: 1. Pile Cap Excavation
Work, 2. Work Floor Work and 3. Pier Head's Fixing Work.
Risk control on the work of
Kretek 2 Bridge in Bantul Regency is as follows:
Control of the risk of drowning
dragged by river currents in pile cap excavation work, consisting of: 1. Use of
boats when measuring on the river, 2. Conduct briefings before starting
activities and 3. Using PPE life vest and placing life ring buoy on the boat
Control of the risk of being
exposed to machine maneuvers on work floor work, consisting of: 1. Installation
of signs and placement of officers in areas that intersect with the highway and
2. Installation of project area guardrails
Control of the risk of falling
from a height on pier head cleaning work, consisting of: 1. Installing the
scaffolding as a working platform and inspecting its airworthiness and 2.
Hazard communication through signs, 3. Refresh training for workers
The investment cost required for
the application of K3 on the Kretek 2 Bridge work in Bantul Regency amounted to
Rp 6,545,998,310 (six billion five hundred and forty-five million nine hundred
ninety-eight thousand three hundred and ten rupiah) or 1.795% of the contract
value of Rp 364,627,810,221, in accordance with the Regulation of the Minister
of Public Works Number: 05/PRT/M/2014, which includes:
The implementation of
construction with high and low hazard potential must involve a construction K3
Expert (Article 6 of the Pu Regulation Number: 05 / PRT / M / 2014)
The cost of organizing SMK3
Construction PU Field is allocated in general costs which include: a. RKK
Preparation, b. Socialization, Promotion and training, c. Work Protective
Equipment and Personal Protective Equipment, d. Insurance and Licensing, e.
Construction Safety Personnel, f. Health Facilities and infrastructure, g.
Health Programs, h. Prevention of Covid-19, i.
Handling of Covid-19 (SE No. 443/5283 of 2021), j. Signs, k. Consultation with
experts related to Construction Safety, l. Miscellaneous Related to K3 Risk
Control, m. Industrial Hygiene, Environmental Management and Monitoring and n.
General and Operational (Article 20 of the Pu Regulation Number: 05/PRT/M/2014)
Hazard Identification, Risk
Assessment, Priority Scale, K3 Risk Control (Appendix to Pu Regulation Number:
05/PRT/M/2014).
REFERENCES
�Andriani, Durri. (2017). Research Methods.
Jakarta: Pratasejati Mandiri
AS/NZS 4360. (1999). Risk Management
Guidelines. Sidney: Strathfield NSW2135.
AS/NZS 4360. (2004). Risk Management
Guidelines. Sidney: Strathfield NSW2135.
Darmawi, Herman. (2008). Risk
Management. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
OHSAS 18001. (2007). Occupational
Safety and Health Management System. Translation by Jack Matatula. Independent
Business.
OHSAS 18002. (2008). K3 Management
System Requirements. OHSAS Project Group
Regulation of the Minister of Public
Works Number: 50/M /2014 concerning Special Construction of Public Works.
Department of Public Works, Jakarta
Regulation of the Minister of
Manpower Number PER.05 / MEN / 1996 of 1996 concerning Occupational Safety and
Health Management System. Occupational Safety and Health
Regulation of the Minister of
Manpower of the Republic of Indonesia No. 26 of 2014 concerning the
Implementation of the Assessment of the Implementation of the Occupational
Safety and Health Management System.
Regulation of the Minister of Public
Works and Public Housing Number 21/PRT/M/2019. About Construction Safety
Management System Guidelines.
Regulation of the Minister of Public
Works and Public Housing Number 10 of 2021. About Occupational Safety and
Health Management System
Regulation of the Minister of
Manpower Number: PER.05/MEN/1996. About Occupational Safety and Health
Management System.
Regulation of the Minister of
Manpower of the Republic of Indonesia. Number: PER.03/MEN/1998. About
Procedures for Accident Reporting and Accident Inspection
Government Regulation of the
Republic of Indonesia Number 50 of 2012 concerning the Implementation of
Occupational Safety and Health Management System.
Ramli, Soehatman. (2010). Practical
Guidelines for Fire Management. Jakarta: Dian Rakyat
Ramli, Soehatman. (2013). Smart
Safety: A Guide to Effective Implementation of SMK3. Jakarta: Dian Rakyat
Law of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 3 of 1992. On Social Security of Labor.
Law of the Republic of Indonesia
No.1 of 1970 concerning Work Safety.
Copyright Holders:
Isyraq Nashrullah
Arifin, Wateno Oetomo, Laksono Djoko Nugroho (2023)
First publication
right:
Devotion - Journal
of Research and Community Service
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International