Construction Safety Risk Distribution in a Phase 7B Haul Road Project Using the IBPR Method in South Kalimantan, Indonesia

Zoevans Mart L. Tobing (Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Palangka Raya, Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan 73112, Indonesia)
Neny Sukmawatie (Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Palangka Raya, Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan 73112, Indonesia)
Yusias Andrie (Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Palangka Raya, Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan 73112, Indonesia)
Ferra Murati (Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Palangka Raya, Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan 73112, Indonesia)
Yossa Yonathan Hutajulu (Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Palangka Raya, Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan 73112, Indonesia)

Civil and Sustainable Urban Engineering
Volume 6 - Issue 2 - 2026

Haul road construction in mining environments involves heavy equipment operations, material transportation, earthworks, and variable ground conditions, all of which may expose workers to occupational safety hazards. This study aimed to assess the distribution of occupational safety risk levels during the Phase 7B haul road construction project at PT Karya Halim Sampoerna, South Kalimantan, Indonesia, using the Identifikasi Bahaya dan Pengendalian Risiko (IBPR; Hazard Identification and Risk Control) method. A descriptive risk assessment approach was employed, integrating qualitative hazard identification with quantitative risk classification. Eight construction activities were evaluated: subgrade compaction, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing, base course material supply, base course compaction, sub-base layer material supply, sub-base layer compaction, drainage excavation, and safety berm construction. A total of 81 potential risks were identified and classified into three categories: medium (scores of 5–9), high (10–19), and critical (20–25). No risks were classified as low. High-risk cases accounted for the largest proportion (40 cases; 49.4%), followed by critical-risk cases (30; 37.0%) and medium-risk cases (11; 13.6%). Sub-base layer material supply exhibited the highest proportion of critical risks (10 of 14 cases; 71.4%), followed by base course material supply (6 of 9 cases; 66.7%). These findings highlight the need to prioritize safety assessments and risk control measures related to material transportation, equipment manoeuvring, unloading operations, equipment–worker interactions, excavation conditions, and safety berm design. However, the absence of the original individual hazard register, complete risk-scoring matrix, observation schedule, and post-control risk scores limits the independent reproducibility of the assessment. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted as aggregated risk classifications rather than independently verified risk scores. This study provides an activity-specific framework for prioritizing occupational safety interventions and identifies essential documentation requirements for improving the transparency, reproducibility, and validation of future risk assessments.