Analisis Faktor Penyebab Risiko Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja (K3) pada Proses Kegiatan Penggantian Oli dan Seal Packing pada Trafo (Studi Kasus: PT X, 2015)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui faktor penyebab risiko Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja (K3) pada proses penggantian oli dan seal packing pada trafo di PT X tahun 2015 dengan menggunakan metode Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) dan Fault-Tree Analysis (FTA). Tahapan proses yang diteliti adalah tahapan proses yang memiliki risiko sisa dengan tingkatan moderate di mana tingkat risiko tersebut membutuhkan pengendalian tambahan untuk menurunkan tingkat risikonya. Hasil penelitian adalah berupa urutan prioritas penanganan risiko Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja (K3) pada tahapan proses yang diteliti, faktor penyebab risiko, dan usulan pengendalian risiko yang dapat menjadi dasar pertimbangan bagi program pengendalian risiko di PT X. Kata kunci: Penilaian Risiko, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, Risk Priority Number, Fault-Tree Analysis, MOCUS. ABSTRACT This research aims to discover the causative factor of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) in the oil and seal packing replacement process on the transformator at PT X 2015 using the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Fault-Tree analysis (FTA). The researched process stages are the stage of process that its residual risk is at moderate level which is this process stage will require additional controls to reduce the existing risk level. The results of this research are a risk control priority order of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) on the process stage that being researched, the causative factor of those risks, and the proposed risk control which can be one of consideration of risk control program in PT X. Keywords : Risk Assessment , Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, Risk Priority Number, Fault-Tree Analysis, MOCUS. DAFTAR PUSTAKA American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Inc. (2010). A Practical Approach to Hazard Identification for Operations and Maintenance Workers. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Crawley, F., & Tyler, B. (2003). Hazard Identification Methods. Rugby: Institution of Chemichal Engineers (IChemE). Dyadem Press. (2003). Guidelines for Failure Mode and Effect Analysis for Automotive, Aerosapce and General Manufacturing Industries. Ontario: CRC Press. Ericson II, C. (2016). Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gusani, D. A. (2012). Analisis Risiko Keselamatan dan kesehatan Kerja di Penyamakan Kulit X Tahun 2012. Depok, Tangerang, Indonesia: Universitas Indonesia. Hadipoetro, S. (2014). Manajemen Komprehensif Keselamatan Kerja. (S. Hadipoetro, & A. Kadir, Penyunt.) Jakarta: Yayasan Patra Tabiyyah Nusantara. Hughes, P., & Ferrett, E. (2009). Introduction to Health and Safety at Work (4th ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Limited. International Labour Organization. (1998). Encyclopedia of Occupational Helath and Safet (4th ed., Vol. III). (J. M. Stellman, Penyunt.) Geneva: International Labour Office. International Labour Organization. (2013). International Labour Organization. Dipetik Juli 10, 2015, dari Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja - ILO: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---ilo-jakarta/documents/publication/wcms_237650.pdf International Organization for Standardization. (2004, November 15). ISO - Publications and e-products . Dipetik Agustus 13, 2015, dari ISO - International Organization for Standardization: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=31807 Kececioglu, D. (2002). Reliability Engineering Handbook (Vol. 2). Lancaster: DEStech Publication. Kustiyaningsih, F. (2011). Penentuan Prioritas Penanganan Kecelakaan kerja di PT GE Lighting Indonesia dengan Metode Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA). Surakarta: Universitas Sebelas Maret. Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series Project Group. (2007, Juli). OHSAS 18001:2007. British Standards. Rae, A. (2007). Acceptable Residual Risk - Principles, Philosophies and Practicalities. The 2nd IET International Conference on System Safety 2007 (hal. 26-31). London: IET. Sower, V. (2011). Essentials of Quality. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand. (2006). Risk Management Guidelines Companion to AS?NZS 4360:2004. Sydney: Standards Australia International Ltd. Sucipto, C. D. (2014). Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja. Yogyakarta: Gosyen Publising. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1981). Fault Tree Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Vesely, B. (2002). Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications (1.1 ed.). NASA. Wilson, L., McCutcheon, D., & Buchanan, M. (2003). Industrial Safety and Risk Management (1st ed.). Edmonton, Alberta: Industrial Safety and Loss Management Program, Faculty of Engineering, University of Alberta.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".