RESEARCH ARTICLE | FEBRUARY 21 2023

Occupational health and safety risk assessment of shipyard

using HIRARC method
Muhammad Badrus Zaman  ; Trika Pitana; Hari Prastowo; ... et. al

AIP Conference Proceedings 2482, 110002 (2023)

https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0117105

CrossMark

 
View Export
Online Citation

Articles You May Be Interested In

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0117105/16760911/110002_1_online.pdf

Occupational health and safety risk assessment of shipyard using HIRARC method
AIP Conference Proceedings (February 2023)

HIRARC evaluation on chemical factories in Malaysia

AIP Conference Proceedings (May 2021)

HIRARC analysis of a palm oil factory in Malaysia

AIP Conference Proceedings (May 2021)
 Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment of
Shipyard using HIRARC Method
Muhammad Badrus Zaman1, a), Trika Pitana1, b), Hari Prastowo1, c), Dwi Priyanta 1, d)
, Nurhadi Siswantoro 1, e), Fajar Siddiq Maulana1, f), and Wolfgang Busse2, g)

Author Affiliations

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0117105/16760911/110002_1_online.pdf

1
Departement of Marine Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, 60111, Indonesia.
2
Department of Maritime Engineering, Hochschule Wismar, Germany.

Author Emails
a)
Corresponding author: druz_zaman@ne.its.ac.id
b)
trika@its.ac.id
c)
h-prastowo@its.ac.id
d)
priyanta@its.ac.id
e)
nurhadisukses@gmail.com
f)
fajarsiddiqmaulana@gmail.com
g)
wolfgang.busse@hs-wismar.de

Abstract. there are plenty of methods could be used for the systematic analysis of occupational safety and health in general,
and risk analysis in particular. This study was initiated in order to create a HIRARC model for the evaluation of
environmental safety and health at a shipyard of PT. X in Madura, Indonesia. The HIRARC model was used to identify the
primary and secondary hazards which may be inherent in the system which were determined as a serious threat for work
activities in the shipyard. The primary tools of the model consisted of work place inspection schemes which included task
observation and interview, safety analysis as well as accident and incident investigation. For risk assessment, the Likelihood
scale was complemented by the severity matrix analysis in order to determine the probability and extent of safety and health
at the shipyard. These were used to identify and recommend control measures which included engineering and
administrative aspects as well as the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for the activities in the shipyard.

INTRODUCTION
Ships has such a significant role in the supply chain and this endeavor shipbuilding companies to develop and
improve in technology, which cause the complexity of the work. Shipyard as one of the construction industry is
considered has low health and safety performance. Across the world, around 60,000 construction workers die each
year. Among other industry, shipyard has the highest fatality rate, which is unacceptably high [1],[2] PT. X as one of
the developing shipbuilding industry have to strictly monitor and manage their OHS implementation in order to
achieve a safe environment for the employees. The impacts of construction accidents is financial loss, social loss, and
human suffering. Financial loss are: Cost incurred by the company for the victims include transportation costs and
medical expenses to the injured worker, a visit to the victims, reduced productivity due to worker injury or illness is
not directly able to work again, payment of wages to workers who are temporarily unable to work, costs for locations
cleanup and repair a broken equipment or facilities, cost the material was broken because of cessation of employment,
delays in schedule and cost to revise the schedule, added administrative work such as typing, investigation, explanation
to media, the cost of training new workers to replace workers who are not able to work again [3],[4],[5]. Social loss
are: losses generated by accident to the society, the loss of productive time of injured workers, the opportunity cost of

The 3rd International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovative Researches

AIP Conf. Proc. 2482, 110002-1–110002-8; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0117105
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4298-6/$30.00

110002-1
family members who supervise or care for the victim, the increasing burden of government services such as police,
fire fighting agencies, health services, courts, and so on [6],[7],[8].
Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) is an important element in the development of programmes aiming to
achieve the welfare of human being. The various potential hazards and risks will cause great harm to the workers and
their families, employers, governments, communities and the environment [9],[10]. These will lead to negative
impacts on various aspects of life in social, human, economic, employment, health, and environmental aspects. Thus,
OSH is one most important aspect to be considered and applied in every activity of work due to its broader impact.
The implementation of OSH will prevent and minimize work accidents and work-related diseases and also support
the increased productivity and welfare, as well as improved competitiveness of enterprises and business sustainability
[11]. The issue is that Indonesia sees increasing number of cases of occupational accidents and diseases, both in the
number of cases (frequency rate) and severity rate[12],[13]. The increase in Occupational accidents and diseases is in
line with the economic growth, and the industrialization which is accompanied by the development of information
and technology [14],[15].
The process of improving working conditions at a shipbuilding or ship repair facility should be approached in an
inclusive and systematic way in order to bring them up to reasonable standards. HIRARC had been known as one of
the method to evaluate the OHS implementation, without exception in shipyard work [16],[17],[18].

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0117105/16760911/110002_1_online.pdf

METHOD

FIGURE 1: Research Flowchart

110002-2
 Problem Identification
Identifying the specific problems and the objectives of the research. The main problem is determined from the
existing problems compared to the required codition based on OHS Standards. This research will undertake research
to improve occupational health and safety implementation in PT. X.

Literature Study
Author undertake literature study with the aim to summarize the basic theories related to the research, specific and
general references, and obtaining various other supporting informations from previous researches. In this research, the
author undertake a literature study on occupational health and safety basic theories, standards, and assessment method.

Data Collecting
This research is to evaluate the OHS implementation in PT. X. In this stage, the informations are collected directly

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0117105/16760911/110002_1_online.pdf

form the company, which includes observing, interviews, and the company’s document.

HIRARC Analysis
All of the data and informations that have been collected from the field are then analyzed using HIRARC method.
The analysis process is divided into three steps, hazard identification, risk assessment, and risk control.
In the Hazard Identification stage, the environment of the workshop is analyzed to identify the hazard. The
possible harms are also elaborated so the severity of the risk could be analyzed later.
The next step is risk assessment, which is a a more detailed investigation of the causes and initiating events and
consequences of the more important accident scenarios identified in the previous step. In this step, the likelihood and
severity of each risks are estimated to give a quantitative value where top risks could be identified and prioritized to
determined controlling action. The Risk Matrix is used to determine the level ranking the risk of a potential hazard,
as shown in Table 1. The risk matrix used had been adjusted based on AS/NZS 4360 : 1999 standard according to the
needs to analyze risks in PT. X shipyard.

TABLE 1. Risk Matrix

Consequences
Likelihood Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
1 2 3 4 5
A (almost certain) High High Extreme Extreme Extreme
B (likely) M High High Extreme Extreme
C (Possible) Low Moderate High Extreme Extreme
D (unlikely) Low Low Moderate High Extreme
E (rare) Low Low Moderate High High

The level of risk likelihood is determined in five levels. The lowest level has a value of 1, with a description of the
possibility of risk occurring very rare. While the highest level has a value of 5, with the possibility of risk occurring
at almost any time. Detailed description and measures are shown in table 2.

110002-3
 TABLE 2. Likelihood Level and Description
Level Descriptor Detail description
5 Almost certain Occur once a day
4 Likely Occur once a week
3 Possible Occur once a month
2 Unlikely Occur once a year
1 Rare Occur only in exceptional circumstances or never happened

Table 3 shows the severity scale of the risk. Level 1 indicates the risk with lowest consequence and 5 indicates
worst consequence risk. With the tailored standard and measured level of severity and likelihood, a survey is done to
Shipyard workers of PT. X to determine the value of likelihood and severity for each risks identified. The
measurements are then done according to the workers experience and the company records.

TABLE 3. Severity Index

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0117105/16760911/110002_1_online.pdf

Level Descriptor
1 Insignificant
2 Minor
3 Moderate
4 Major
5 Catastrophic
Detail description
No injuries, low financial loss (< Rp. 1M)
First aid treatment, on-site release immediately contained, medium
financial loss (< Rp. 10M)
Medical treatment required, on-site release contained, high financial
loss (< Rp. 100M)
Extensive injuries, loss of production capability, off-site release with
no detrimental effects, major financial loss (< Rp. 1B)
Death, toxic release off-site with detrimental effects, huge financial
loss (> Rp. 1B)

The next step after conducting a risk assessment is to carry out risk control where control recommendations will
be made to minimize the existing risks. The control options are divided into five categories, which includes
elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administration controls, and Personal Protective Equipment used.

HIRARC Evaluation
The HIRARC analysis that has been done would be consulted with the company and measured whether the hazard
identified are sufficient and the risk controlled are acceptable. If the analysis result has met the requirements, then the
author will continue arranging the recommendation document.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PT. X is an indonesian registered private company which concentrates its business expertise in aluminium ship
building and repair. The object of the research is their shipyard workshop/building berth Located on Jalan Raya Kamal
1, Madura – Indonesia. PT. X has acquired ISO 9001 and OHSAS 18001 From Lloyds Register and apply these
occupational Health and Safety at work.
The assessment is done by dividing the shipyard into four areas, namely fabrication area, assembly area, around
ship repair area, and warehouse area.

110002-4
 TABLE 4. HIRARC Framework
Possible Risk Level
No Location Hazard
Harm (s) Consequence L S R Descriptor
1 Exposure of Inhalation of No Injury 5 1 5 High
leftover metals Infection 1 3 3 Moderate
materials particles Death 1 5 5 High
2 Small metal Get in the Eye Irritation 5 2 10 High
particles blown eyes Blind 1 4 4 High
Equipment failure 2 2 4 Moderate
3 Placed Things Caught in Equipment should 1 3 3 Moderate
Carelessly the be replaced.
equipment
Minor Injury. 4 2 8 High
4 Sharp Tools Hand cut Serious injury 2 3 6 Moderate
Disabilities 1 4 4 High
Fabrication No injury 4 1 4 Moderate

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0117105/16760911/110002_1_online.pdf

5 Area Wire Could get Electric Serious injury 2 3 6 Moderate
torn shock Disabilities 1 4 4 High
Death 1 5 5 High
6 Crossing table Workers No injury 4 1 4 Moderate
could trip
7 Worker does not Inhalation of No injury 5 1 5 High
wear mask metals Infection 1 3 3 Moderate
properly particles Death 1 5 5 High
8 Unorganized Workers No injury 4 1 4 Moderate
materials could trip
9 Sand and dust Workers No injury 2 1 2 Low
On the workplace could fall
floor

Fabrication Area
Based on Table 4, there are 10 high level risks, 9 medium level risks, and 1 low level risks that exist in the
fabrication area of the shipyard. The recommendations to control the risk proposed by the author consists of:
1. Conduct supervision in the area to ensure that the existing SOPs are implemented.
2. Keep the area organized and clean from dust, sand, and materials to prevent potential accidents and illness.
3. Provide sufficient facilities to avoid hazards such as providing racks for materials, providing organized cable
trays, and increase the amount of power sockets.

Assembly Area
At the assembly area, there were found 8 high level risks, 5 moderate risks, and 6 low level risks. The high level
risks are dominated by hazards that occur from the objects and environment around the area. From the situation, author
recommend these risk control to be applied:
1. Keep the area organized and clean from dust, sand, and materials to prevent potential accidents and illness.
2. Strictly monitor the workers to use PPEs at all times.
3. Avoid working when tired and feeling unwell, as well as over working.

Around Ship Repair Area

The area around the ship repair activity is the most dangerous of all areas in the shipyard. There were 16 high level
risks, 11 moderate level risks, and 10 low level risks identified. The highest risks are due to the working conditions

110002-5
and the equipment used by the workers such as crane operation, welding work, grinding work, and when working at
heights. From this, the author recommends the following risk controls:
1. When crane is in operation, alert the people in the area by using alarm or any other method so that no one is in
the way.
2. Welders should not work at the same time close to each other, to reduce the risk from the fumes and beam.
3. Grinding work should also not done at the same time where two or more workers are closed by to avoid sparks
and small particles jumped.
4. Provide rubber padding for the stairs to increase grip and avoid falling accident even when sands are blown.

Warehouse Area
In the warehouse area, there were no significant risk found. The risks are mainly caused by the less developed
space relating to the narrow area and the steel chairs. The risk control that the author could give are:
1. Move the warehouse to a bigger space to increase the capacity and provide bigger space for the workers to
move comfortably.
2. Change the chairs to ergonomic chairs to reduce fatigue and back pain that could affect the worker’s

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0117105/16760911/110002_1_online.pdf

maintenance activities.

HIRARC Evaluation
TABLE 4. Hirarc Framework
No Consequences Risk Index
1 Eye irritation caused by small metal particles 10
3 Minor hand cut caused by sharp tools 8
4 Injuries from working below the ship 8
5 Minor burns from grindings sparks 6
6 Inhalation of small particles 5
7 Eye irritation from blown sand and dust 5

Overall, of the 4 locations analyzed, there were 90 potential danger identified. Among them, 34 (38%) potential
hazards with a high level of risk, 35 (39%) potential hazards with a moderate risk level, and 21 (23%) potential hazards
with low level risk.

FIGURE 2. Percentage of Risk Level Identified

Most of these are sourced from the lack of individual awareness on the aspects of safety, working environment
condition, and lack of monitoring of workers and actions such as reprimand or dismissal. It is discovered that the most
dangerous area is around the ship repair activity, with the total of 38 risks or around 42% of all potential risks at the

110002-6
Shipyard. The risks are mainly due to the working activities such as welding and grinding which involves dangerous
equipment, working locations, and also belittling the safety procedures.

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0117105/16760911/110002_1_online.pdf

FIGURE 3. Risks Identified In Each Areas of Shipyard

According to the interviews with the workers, the hazards in the shipyard does not seem to bother them. Such
condition affects the working culture in the shipyard, where the workers might be aware of the existing hazards but
underestimate the potential harm or danger and leads to disobedient of the workers to the safety procedures. It is
common to be found when workers do not wear the appropriate protective equipment, which could cause several kinds
of accident. By far, there has not been much accident, especially the significant ones because most of the workers are
experienced in their field, and this is one of their advantages to implement a proper OHS management.
Overcoming the culture of the workers could be done by strictly monitoring the work at the shipyard by a
competent and committed supervisor. Unfortunately, there is no any specified person in the organization that is
responsible for such role. The person who is in charge to monitor the work is the Human Resource manager, whose
work is mainly in the office, and less experienced and knowledge regarding OHS. In conclusion, PT. X should provide
a new organizational structure to implement a decent OHS management.

CONCLUSION
1. Based on the results of the HIRARC analysis carried out, the factors that contribute for causing accidents and
illnesses in the Shipyard are:
x Existing facilities in the shipyard
x The OHS cultures among workers
x Lack of supervision
x OHS policies that are not implemented strictly
x Lack of work accident data record
x Insufficient organizational structure to implement and monitor OHSMS
2. Based on the results of the HIRARC evaluation, two types of recommendation characteristics are given, which are
technical and management recommendations. Recommended risk control that can be given to the Shipyard are as
follows:
Technical
x Inspect the appropriateness of workshop tools, PPE, firefighting tools regularly.
x Implement proper housekeeping practice.
x Provide organized cable trays and increase the amount of power sockets.
x Improve the existing facilities.
Management
x Make new organizational structure to supervise OHS implementation
x Develop safe work habit and culture.
x Apply strict regulations for the implementation of OHS.
x Conduct a proper documentation of work accidents.
x Conduct a periodic OHS evaluation.

110002-7
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors would like to thank the members of Digital Marine Operation and Maintenance Laboratory for the
discussions and insights through this research.

REFERENCES
1. B. Barlas,. Occupational Fatalities in Shipyards: an Analysis in Turkey, (Brodgadnja, 2011) vol 63, No. 1, pp
35-41
2. G. S. Yahya, “Evaluasi Risiko Kesehatan dan Keselamatan Kerja (K3) Menggunakan Metode HIRARC Pada
Reparasi Galangan Kapal X,” Bachelor thesis, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, 2020.
3. A. M. Saedi, J. J. Thambirajah, and A. Pariatamby, A HIRARC model for safety and risk evaluation at a
hydroelectric power generation plant, (Elsevier vol 70, 2014) pp 308-315.

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0117105/16760911/110002_1_online.pdf

4. B. Suhardi, A. Y. V. Estianto, and P. W. Laksono, “Analysis of Potential Work Accidents Using Hazard
Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC) Method,” in Argonomics and Prooduct Design II-
2016, ICIMECE Conference Proceedings, (ICIMECE Publishing, Yogyakarta, 2016) pp 17-21.
5. E .Wijanarko, “Analisis Risiko Keselamatan Pengunjung Terminal Purabaya Menggunakan Metode Hirarc
(Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment And Risk Control),” Bachelor thesis, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh
Nopember, 2017.
6. B. Endroyo, B. E. Yuwono, and E. D. Purwanto, Implementation of Occupational Health and Safety Management
in Developing Countries Study In Construction Field In Indonesia, (PONTE, vol 72, 2016) pp. 83-90.
7. B. O. Alli, Fundamental Health Principles of Occupational Health and Safety, 2 nd ed (ILO, Geneva, 2008).
8. ILO, National Profile on OSH in Indonesia, (ILO, Jakarta, 2018).
9. T. S. Abdelhamid, and J. G. Everett, Identifying Root Causes of Construction Accidents, (Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 2020) vol 126, No. 1, pp 52-60.
10. W. Tambunan, F. I. Zudhari, and T. A. Prawita, Analisis Risiko Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja Menggunakan
Metode Hirarc pada Proses Perbaikan Kapal Tugboat (Studi Kasus PT Marga Surya Shipindo, Samarinda),
(JIME, 2019) vol 3, No. 1, pp 33-41.
11. R. N. Putri, and M. Trifiananto, Analisa Hazard Identification Risk Assessment And Risk Control (Hirarc) Pada
Perguruan Tinggi Yang Berlokasi Di Pabrik, (National Conference: Seminar dan Konferensi Nasional IDEC,
Surakarta, 2019), pp B11.1-B11.10.
12. ILO code of practice: Safety and health in shipbuilding and ship repair, (International Labour Office, Geneva,
2019).
13. M. Yusuf, M. F. Idris, and M. Nur, Manajemen Risiko Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja Pada Pekerjaan
Galangan Kapal di Tanjungpinang, (Jurnal Kesehatan, Tanjungpinang, 2019) vol 12, No. 2, pp 260-272.
14. Department of Occupational Safety and Health Malaysia, Guidelines On Occupational Safety And Health
Management Systems, (DOSH Malaysia, Selangor, 2008).
15. H. Syafrial and A. Ardiansyah, Prosedur Keselamatan Dan Kesehatan Kerja (K3) Pada PT. Satunol Mikrosistem
Jakarta, (Jurnal Abiwara, Jakarta, 2020) vol 1, No. 2, pp 60-70.
16. M.B. Zaman, A. Baheramsyah, I. Ashari.; Analysis of Work Accident Factors in the Shipyard, IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2021, 698 (1) 012016.
17. M. B. Zaman, D. Priyanta and N. Siswantoro, "Implementation of AIS for Ship’s Collision Analysis: Case
Study," International Journal on Engineering Applications (IREA), vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 249-255, 2020.
18. M. B. Zaman, N. Siswantoro and F. D. Luciawan, "Analysis of Inspection Scheduling Program on Condensate
Atmospheric Storage Tank Using Risk Based Inspection," International Review of Mechanical Engineering
(IREME), vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 565-571, 2020.

110002-8