Enhancing Occupational Safety in Rock Mining: A Comprehensive Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment, and Risk Control and Fault Tree Analysis

Mining is a strategic sector, as developing countries play a major role as producers and suppliers of essential commodities, including copper, bauxite, iron ore, precious metals, and natural resources [1]. The World Bank Group, through the Mining Department, has emphasized that the mining sector makes an important contribution to the economies of many countries, especially through job creation and the transfer of skills and competencies from the workforce involved [2]. In addition, various studies have shown that mining activities can provide real benefits to local communities, for example, through the growth of micro-business activities around mining areas [3]. However, these benefits do not eliminate the need to manage negative impacts that can arise simultaneously, such as ecological and environmental sustainability issues and social justice [4, 5]. Related to worker welfare, this includes occupational safety and health (OSH) [6]. Thus, improving mining safety performance is necessary and extends beyond injury prevention to include operational sustainability and worker protection.

In a global context, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) emphasizes that workers still die from work-related illnesses and accidents every year, with impacts that range from human suffering to financial losses [5]. The ILO also estimates that there is an annual loss to global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, in several Indonesian papers underlying the Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja (K3) literature, this impact is still cited qualitatively, whereas all the papers refer to specific numerical value figures, so that its quantitative urgency cannot be measured as a basis for the research argument [5]. In contrast, poor working conditions and unsafe behavior, accompanied by a high number of accidents, encourage various parties to strengthen protections for workers [4]. K3/OSH is understood as an effort to prevent accidents and occupational diseases and to create a safe, healthy, and prosperous society and work environment [7]. Therefore, work accidents affect not only companies but also the wider community [8]. If a company implements adequate K3 measures, the number of workers who experience short- and long-term work-related illnesses can be reduced [8]. This emphasis on prevention underscores that K3 management must be systematic and oriented towards risk reduction from the activity planning stage, rather than correction after an incident occurs.

In the Indonesian context, the dynamics of K3 management can be observed through the trend of safety incidents. Based on data from the Directorate General of Oil and Gas, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, in 2024, safety incident reports showed fluctuations over the past five years. In 2020, the mild category accounted for 206 cases; in 2021, 89; in 2023, 124; and in 2024, 122. Moderate category incidents also showed a consistent decline from 55 cases in 2020 to 12 cases in 2024. Severe category incidents dropped from 10 in 2020 to 2 in 2024, while fatal incidents remained relatively stable at 2–4 cases during the period, including 3 in 2023 and 2024. The total number of incidents per year fluctuated from 273 in 2020 to 139 in 2024. This pattern indicates that improvement in K3 has not fully led to a consistent decline; therefore, the effectiveness of risk control and continuous monitoring needs to be strengthened. The obligation to implement K3 is also emphasized, with employers/companies responsible for fulfilling these obligations to increase productivity, including supervising activities that may endanger workers’ safety and health [9]. Good K3 maintenance correlates with reduced illness, absenteeism, disability, and work accidents, thereby helping to achieve the goal of creating healthy and productive workers [10].

Regarding work accident data, BPJS Employment noted that approximately 130,000 work accidents occurred in the 2018–2019 period [11]. This condition underscores the urgency of K3 through proactive harm reduction rather than reactive responses after an incident. However, in practice, there are still conceptual and methodological challenges in the literature and in application; for example, the terms "K3” and “OSH” are often inconsistently mixed. The mixing of these terms can create ambiguity about the analysis’s focus—whether the study emphasizes safety only, health only, or both in an integrated manner—thereby affecting the consistency of the discussion and reporting of findings. In addition, some statistics used to reinforce urgency (e.g., the ILO’s estimate of global GDP loss) are often cited without specific figures, even though these figures are important for strengthening the argument's basis and the accuracy of the need for an applicable, measurable study [5]. As a result, some studies have not fully articulated why stronger approaches are needed or how these shortcomings directly affect the quality of risk control recommendations.

The basic principle to understand is that every job has potential dangers. A hazard is understood to be a source, condition, or action that may cause an accident, injury to humans, damage, or other disturbance (referring to OHSAS 18001) [12]. If potential hazards are not identified and controlled, they can lead to fatigue, musculoskeletal complaints [12], injuries, and even work accidents [13]. Therefore, a risk analysis method is needed that can identify hazards, assess risk levels, and develop controls in an appropriate and traceable manner [14]. In the framework of K3 risk analysis, fault tree analysis (FTA) is relevant because it can graphically represent the combination of errors that cause system failures, while helping to explain and assess events in the system [15-17].

In practice, K3 control also requires alignment with the regulatory framework and management of the K3 management system, including Government Regulation Number 50 of 2012 on its implementation. Within this framework, work procedures must be provided for each type of work and implemented through K3-oriented work analysis (Occupational Safety Analysis) [18]. In mining companies, the safety management system must also be implemented by mining service companies within their areas of responsibility, in accordance with the Decree of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Number 1827 concerning guidelines for the implementation of good mining engineering rules [18]. The connection between risk assessment, work procedures, and implementation evaluation is a key point, so that the formulated control does not stop at the document level

This study is directed toward stone mining businesses, which encompass a range of activities from exploration and exploitation to processing/refining, transportation, and sales [19]. In particular, materials such as sand, gravel, river rock, and filler soil. In such activities, analyzing potential hazards and assessing the risks associated with identified hazards are essential to prevent occupational accidents [19]. However, inadequate analysis of potential hazards and risk assessments is among the causes of work accidents, resulting in prevention measures that are not sufficiently robust or that do not address the root of the problem [20]. This confirms the need for a measurable hazard and risk analysis, as well as a tracing approach, to ensure that control truly addresses the underlying cause of the incident.

Based on this description, the research gap can be sharpened by two main, interrelated focuses. First, conceptually, there is still a misalignment of terms in the literature between “K3” and “OSH,” which are used interchangeably without consistency of definition and focus limitations, as well as the existence of statistics cited without specific figures (e.g., the estimated ILO GDP loss), so that the urgency that should be quantitatively accountable becomes less decisive. This results in research needs being only partially tied to measurable evidence, and can affect the depth of the study justification. Second, methodologically, many studies have applied a risk identification-based K3 approach or used specific analysis, but have not explicitly demonstrated the integration between hazard identification, risk assessment, and risk control (HIRARC) by tracing the root cause of events through FTA, especially in the context of rock mining in specific locations. This integration gap is important because HIRARC generally emphasizes “what is potentially happening” through the risk assessment process. At the same time, the FTA explains “why events occur” through a cause-and-effect structure. Without a clear integration between HIRARC output and root-cause tracing via FTA, control recommendations are potentially less precise in identifying the root cause, tend to be generic, and do not optimally explain the relationships among incidents relevant to stone mining activities.

Therefore, this research aims to conduct an HIRARC-based K3 analysis using the FTA method on stone mining activities in Gowa Regency. This approach is expected to facilitate the identification and evaluation of risks associated with mining activities, including routine and non-routine tasks, such that critical hazards that are not immediately apparent in the initial inspection can be revealed. By integrating HIRARC results and root-cause tracing of FTA, this study aims to produce a more comprehensive mapping of the relationships among potential hazards, risk levels, and the underlying causes of incidents. Ultimately, the results of the analysis are expected to contribute to the formulation of more effective risk management strategies and to the improvement of safety culture in the mining environment, thereby minimizing the risk of work accidents and making the work environment healthier. Through this comprehensive and integrated assessment, the research is also directed to produce tailored recommendations to improve safety measures and compliance with K3 provisions.

Table 4 summarizes the required actions and control measures corresponding to each risk level.

Work fatigue is a critical threat in the quarrying and mining sector, where high physical demands, long working hours, and exposure to extreme environments (heat, dust, and noise) accelerate the decline in workers’ physiological and cognitive capacity. In 2024, one case of acute fatigue was reported, resulting in the loss of normal activities. This incident reflects a lack of attention to non-physical risks in the management of mining K3. The analysis showed that the causative factors included excessive working hours (> 10 hours/day), fragmented sleep patterns (< 5 hours a night), poor hydration and nutrition, a hot work environment (30–36 ℃), and weak managerial policies such as the absence of a fatigue risk management system (FRMS) and periodic health monitoring.

To prevent similar incidents, it is recommended to implement an integrated fatigue management program that includes workload evaluation and the establishment of maximum working hours (≤ 8 effective hours/day) with shift rotations that guarantee recovery; compulsory structured rest (15–30 minutes every 4 hours intensive) and consecutive overtime restrictions; quality rest facilities and electrolyte fluid and nutrient supply; and fatigue monitoring based on biometric indicators (heart rate, body temperature) plus periodic health surveillance. This approach should be combined with fatigue recognition training for workers and supervisors, as well as managerial changes that prioritise safety over production targets, to minimise physiological risks and maintain long-term productivity.

This study identified 11 potential hazards in the stone mining sector in Gowa, of which 55% are classified as high- or extreme-risk. The dominant risks identified include mechanical accidents involving heavy equipment (such as cranes and excavators), chronic ergonomic fatigue, and psychosocial work stress. FTA showed that the critical root causes were dominated by human error factors and procedural non-compliance (64%), equipment failures (27%), and environmental conditions (9%). As a mitigation measure, priority controls were formulated, including engineering controls such as routine equipment inspections and stockpile protection. In addition, administrative strengthening was implemented through the establishment of exclusion zones, operator certification, and traffic management. The focus on mitigation also includes fatigue management programs and workers’ mental health. The integration of the HIRARC and FTA methods confirms that the effectiveness of K3 is highly dependent on interventions in worker behavior and the sustainable management of environmental dynamics.

To identify the source of risk in mining group C in the Gowa working area, Bontonompo District, Barembeng Village, an FTA was used to identify the root cause and implement corrective actions based on the fault tree. Potential sources of accidents in mining can be identified using FTA, which is a simple analytical technique. By constructing a fault tree, the main cause of each accident in the HIRARC analysis can be identified as follows: Mining group C in the Gowa working area, Bontonompo District, and Barembeng Village is aware of unsafe human actions and environmental conditions.