Towards Health-Promoting Occupational Health and Safety in Aluminium Smelter Feasibility Planning: A Macroergonomic Case Study
Abstract
Introduction: Aluminium smelter feasibility studies must address not only technical and economic viability but also the early design of a safe socio-technical work system. This study evaluated how occupational safety, process safety, human factors, contractor interfaces, and operational readiness were integrated into one aluminium smelter feasibility study
Methods: An evaluative qualitative case study combined a structured document review, literature- and standards-based benchmarks, and semi-structured interviews with four purposively selected experts. Each analytical indicator was classified as present, partially operationalized, or absent. The judgment was derived from explicit evidence requirements, document content, interview convergence or contradiction, and relevance to feasibility-stage decisions. NVivo supported data organization and auditability but coding frequency was not used as evidence of thematic importance.
Results: The document contained conventional feasibility components and generic safety provisions. However, most macroergonomic dimensions were only partially operationalized. Competence planning, occupational hygiene, organizational arrangements, and process safety were mentioned but lacked defined requirements, deliverables, responsibilities, or verification criteria. Human-machine interface evaluation, contractor interface governance, major-accident analysis, and operational-readiness gates were absent or insufficiently specified. Expert evidence converged on six priority gaps: competency assurance, HMI and control-room risk, HAZOP/PHA and major-accident scenarios, contractor interfaces, occupational hygiene baselines, and operational readiness.
Conclusion: This single-case study does not establish a general model for all aluminium smelter projects. Its contribution is a case-based evaluative framework that makes macroergonomic judgments traceable through explicit indicators and evidence thresholds. The framework can support identification of feasibility-stage gaps that may otherwise be transferred to engineering, commissioning, and operations, but its predictive value requires testing in additional projects and longitudinal settings.
Downloads
References
- W. Behrens and P. M. Hawranek, Manual for the preparation of industrial feasibility studies. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization, 1991. [Online]. Available: https://www.unido.org/resources-publications-publications/manual-preparation-industrial-feasibility-studies
- S. McLeod, “Feasibility studies for novel and complex projects: principles synthesised through an integrative review,” Project Leadership and Society, vol. 2, p. 100022, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2021.100022.
- A. M. Burhan and H. A. Mahdi, “The feasibility study report as an effective tool to evaluate investment projects: a solid waste treatment project as a case study,” Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 12817–12821, 2024, https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.6676.
- Center for Chemical Process Safety, Guidelines for risk based process safety. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley-Interscience, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Guidelines+for+Risk+Based+Process+Safety-p-9780470165690
- E. Stefana, F. Marciano, D. Rossi, and P. Cocca, “Integrating occupational and process safety in high-risk industries: a systematic review,” Safety, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 10, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/safety8010010.
- J. Reason, Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139062367.
- D. Guglielmi, A. Paolucci, V. Cozzani, M. G. Mariani, L. Pietrantoni, and F. Fraboni, “Integrating human barriers in human reliability analysis: a new model for the energy sector,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 19, no. 5, p. 2797, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052797.
- H. W. Hendrick and B. M. Kleiner, Macroergonomics: theory, methods, and applications. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781410604852.
- International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 6385:2016 Ergonomics principles in the design of work systems,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/63785.html
- M. C. Davis, R. Challenger, D. N. W. Jayewardene, and C. W. Clegg, “Advancing socio-technical systems thinking: a call for bravery,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 171–180, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.02.009.
- E. Haro and B. M. Kleiner, “Macroergonomics as an organizing process for systems safety,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 450–458, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.02.018.
- N. Balfe, M. C. Leva, C. Ciarapica-Alunni, and S. O’Mahoney, “Total project planning: integration of task analysis, safety analysis and optimisation techniques,” Saf. Sci., vol. 100, pp. 216–224, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.10.014.
- M. A. Hossain, E. L. S. Abbott, D. K. H. Chua, T. Q. Nguyen, and Y. M. Goh, “Design-for-safety knowledge library for BIM-integrated safety risk reviews,” Autom. Constr., vol. 94, pp. 290–302, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.07.010.
- L. A. Murphy, M. M. Robertson, and P. Carayon, “The next generation of macroergonomics: integrating safety climate,” Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 68, pp. 16–24, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.11.011.
- A. M. M. A, K. Khalid, and R. Davidson, “Modeling the impact of safety climate on process safety in a modern process industry: the case of the UAE’s oil-refining industry,” Cogent Business & Management, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 1647591, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1647591.
- A. Hertanto, D. Erwandi, B. Widanarko, and M. Tejamaya, “Relationship between safety climate and safety behavior in Company X in Indonesia,” Safety, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 89, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/safety9040089.
- A. Kadir, F. Lestari, R. Y. Sunindijo, D. Erwandi, Y. Kusminanti, and R. Modjo, “Safety climate in the Indonesian construction industry: strengths, weaknesses and influential demographic characteristics,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 5, p. 639, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12050639.
- F. Lestari, R. Y. Sunindijo, M. Loosemore, Y. Kusminanti, and B. Widanarko, “A safety climate framework for improving health and safety in the Indonesian construction industry,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 17, no. 20, p. 7462, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207462.
- H. Kvande and P. A. Drablos, “The aluminum smelting process and innovative alternative technologies,” J. Occup. Environ. Med., vol. 56, no. 5 Suppl, pp. S23–S32, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000062.
- O. Bazaluk, V. Tsopa, S. Cheberiachko, O. Deryugin, D. Radchuk, and O. Borovytskyi, “Ergonomic risk management process for safety and health at work,” Front. Public Health, vol. 11, p. 1253141, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1253141.
- S. H. Farjana, N. Huda, P. M. M. A, and R. Saidur, “A review on the impact of mining and mineral processing industries through life cycle assessment,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 231, pp. 1200–1217, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.264.
- K. Malterud, V. D. Siersma, and A. D. Guassora, “Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power,” Qual. Health Res., vol. 26, no. 13, pp. 1753–1760, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444.
- International Labour Organization, “Safety and health in the non-ferrous metals industries: code of practice,” International Labour Organization, Geneva, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.ilo.org/resource/other/safety-and-health-non-ferrous-metals-industries
- V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
- M. Naeem, W. Ozuem, K. Howell, and S. Ranfagni, “A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 22, p. 16094069231205788, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789.
- E. Cena, J. Brooks, W. Day, S. Goodman, A. Rousaki, and V. Ruby-Granger, “Quality criteria: general and specific guidelines for qualitative approaches in psychology research,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 23, p. 16094069241282844, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241282843.
- A. Cardoso, A. Colim, E. Bicho, A. C. Braga, M. Menozzi, and P. Arezes, “Ergonomics and human factors as a requirement to implement safer collaborative robotic workstations: a literature review,” Safety, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 71, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/safety7040071.
- C. I. C. K. I, S. Belayutham, P. Manu, and A. M. Mahamadu, “Design for safety in construction: critical competencies for designers,” Saf. Sci., vol. 145, p. 105496, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105496.
- W. P. Neumann, S. Winkelhaus, E. H. Grosse, and C. H. Glock, “Industry 4.0 and the human factor: a systems framework and analysis methodology for successful development,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 233, p. 107992, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107992.
- R. Lv, J. Chen, Q. Sun, and Z. Ye, “Design-construction phase safety risk analysis of assembled buildings,” Buildings, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 949, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13040949.
Copyright (c) 2026 Media Publikasi Promosi Kesehatan Indonesia (MPPKI)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
