Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Please specify the hazard identification techniques expected to be used for this project; and provide a description of your experience employing those techniques. Also describe or explain your approach to systematically: Identify high risk work, and existing and potential hazards and risks, to eliminate or reduce safety risks to workers and the public: At the planning stage At the execution stage Identify potential safety issues or hazards that may arise during or as a result of the work Provide examples of the following: Any standardized tools used to complete a hazard identification and risk assessment A process or systems used in ensuring the appropriate level of control is applied to the identified hazards and risk Mitigation of hazards and risks at the field level

A comprehensive HIRA/JSA/JHA/TRA program for a project should define a documented, repeatable process that begins in planning and continues through execution, change management, and closeout. At its core, risk assessment is the process of identifying hazards, assessing the risk associated with each hazard, prioritizing those hazards, and deciding what measures are needed to eliminate or control harm. The process should be applied to specific activities, tasks, jobs, locations, and lifecycle phases, and should address risks to workers, contractors, visitors, and the public. [5] [7] [10]

• Establish scope before the assessment begins: define the activity, area, lifecycle stage, interfaces, and hazard categories to be assessed.
• Use a competent, multidisciplinary team that includes supervisors, workers familiar with the task, and health and safety representatives.
• Break each job or process into logical steps or task segments before identifying hazards.
• Identify hazards for each step using observations, inspections, worker input, incident history, documents, SDSs, manufacturer information, and applicable standards.
• Assess risk for each hazard using a standardized method based on likelihood/probability and severity/consequence.
• Rank hazards by priority so the highest-risk work is addressed first.
• Select controls using the hierarchy of controls, then implement, communicate, and verify them.
• Review and update the assessment when conditions change, after incidents, before non-routine work, and during field execution.

[8] [6] [14] Experience applying hazard identification techniques should be demonstrated through a structured combination of formal and practical methods. Effective project safety documentation should show use of job safety analysis, job hazard analysis, workplace inspections, hazard mapping, incident and near-miss review, employee hazard reporting, document review, and direct worker consultation. The strongest programs do not rely on a single technique; they combine worker knowledge, supervisory review, historical data, and field observation to identify both obvious and less visible hazards. [2] [9] [15]

• Review all aspects of the work, including routine and non-routine activities such as maintenance, repair, cleaning, commissioning, shutdowns, and emergencies.
• Examine the physical environment, equipment, tools, materials, products, and work methods.
• Assess each step of the task, not just the overall activity.
• Include all shifts, remote or off-site workers, drivers, teleworkers, subcontractors, and client-interface work.
• Consider foreseeable abnormal conditions such as power loss, extreme weather, emergency response limitations, and equipment modification or guard removal.
• Review the full lifecycle of the process or service, including design, transport, construction, operation, dismantling, and disposal.
• Evaluate impacts on visitors and the public, not only the work crew.
• Consider worker competency, training, experience, physical and cognitive capability, and vulnerable worker groups.

[2] [1] [9] Systematic identification of high-risk work should be built into planning and execution. During planning, the project should identify tasks with higher injury potential, complex interfaces, hazardous energy, work at height, lifting operations, confined spaces, mobile equipment interaction, line breaking, electrical work, excavation, simultaneous operations, public interface, and environmental or weather exposure. During execution, the same system should be used to reassess changing conditions, newly introduced hazards, and the adequacy of existing controls before work starts and whenever conditions change. [6] [8] [15]

Standardized risk assessment tools should use a consistent form and scoring method so hazards are evaluated the same way across the project. A typical tool records the task step, hazard, potential consequence, risk rating, priority, existing controls, and recommended controls. Risk matrices may be qualitative or semi-quantitative, but they should always define probability and severity clearly so the team applies ratings consistently. A common semi-quantitative approach uses the formula risk = probability × severity and then assigns categories such as low, moderate, high, or extreme. [12] [4] [14]

• Use a project-standard HIRA/JSA/JHA/TRA template for all crews and subcontractors.
• Define probability and severity scales in writing and train users on how to score them.
• Require ranking or prioritization so high and extreme risks trigger escalation, additional review, or permit controls before work proceeds.
• Document existing controls separately from recommended additional controls.
• Require reassessment when scope, crew, equipment, environment, or simultaneous operations change.
• Retain records showing how decisions were made, who participated, and what controls were verified in the field.

[4] [6] [12] Application of the hierarchy of controls should be explicit in the documentation and in field practice. For every significant hazard, the assessment should show that elimination was considered first, followed by substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and PPE. PPE should not be treated as the primary control unless higher-order controls are not practicable or additional protection is needed. In many cases, a combination of controls is required, and the selected controls must not introduce new hazards. [3] [11] [13]

Control verification is a critical due-diligence element. The project should verify not only that controls were selected, but that they were implemented, understood, maintained, and effective. Verification should include pre-job checks, supervisor observations, workplace inspections, permit validation, equipment condition checks, worker competency confirmation, and periodic review of whether exposure has actually been reduced or eliminated. If controls are ineffective or conditions change, the assessment must be revised and work conditions re-briefed. [6] [14] [13]

Field-level hazard mitigation should supplement formal pre-planning assessments. A field-level risk assessment or daily task review should be completed at the point of work to identify real-time hazards, confirm the steps of the task, assess current risk, verify whether existing controls remain adequate, and identify any additional controls needed before work begins. This is especially important for dynamic environments, changing weather, simultaneous operations, access constraints, public exposure, and evolving site conditions. The field-level process should be treated as a living assessment and reinforced through site-specific job briefings. [3] [4] [15]

To demonstrate compliance with occupational health and safety requirements, due diligence, and regulatory safety management practices, project documentation should show that assessments are completed before work begins, updated when changes occur, informed by applicable laws and standards, communicated to affected workers, and retained as records. Due diligence is strengthened when the organization can show competent participation, worker involvement, hazard-specific information review, prioritization of high-risk work, implementation of controls, verification of effectiveness, and continuous improvement based on inspections, incidents, and changing conditions. [8] [14] [7]

• Project HIRA/JSA/JHA/TRA procedure defining scope, roles, triggers, approval levels, and review frequency.
• Standard templates with fields for task steps, hazards, persons at risk, consequences, likelihood, severity, risk rating, priority, existing controls, additional controls, responsible person, and verification status.
• Evidence of worker and supervisor participation, including pre-job meetings and field briefings.
• A defined risk matrix and written scoring criteria.
• A hierarchy-of-controls decision process showing why selected controls were chosen.
• Field-level assessment records for daily work and changing conditions.
• Inspection, audit, and observation records verifying controls remain effective.
• Training and competency records for persons conducting assessments and supervising high-risk work.
• Change-management and incident-learning processes that trigger reassessment.
• Document retention practices sufficient to demonstrate regulatory compliance and due diligence.

[6] [12] [14] In practice, a strong project safety submission should describe a closed-loop system: identify hazards early, assess and rank risk consistently, apply the hierarchy of controls, verify controls in the field, communicate expectations before and during work, reassess when conditions change, and maintain records that demonstrate legal compliance and due diligence. That approach aligns with recognized HIRA/JSA/JHA/TRA principles and provides a defensible framework for protecting workers and the public throughout planning and execution. [7] [6] [3]