Field-level hazard assessment: check the job that exists today

Direct answer. A field-level hazard assessment (FLHA), also called a field-level risk assessment (FLRA) in some guidance, is a short, worksite-level check of the actual task and conditions before work starts or when they change. The crew identifies the work steps, the hazards present now, the controls available now and any reason the job must be delayed or replanned. It complements a planned job hazard assessment or safe work procedure; it does not replace one. CCOHS field-level risk assessment, checked 5 October 2026.

“FLHA” is common industry terminology, not one single Canada-wide statutory form. Occupational health and safety law is provincial or territorial for most workplaces, with a separate federal regime for federally regulated work. Alberta provides a useful concrete example: section 7 of its OHS Code requires an employer to assess the work site, identify existing and potential hazards before work begins, document the results and controls, date the assessment and repeat it when specified changes occur; section 8 requires affected workers' involvement. Those exact requirements should not be copied as if every province uses the same wording. Alberta OHS Code, Part 2.

The existing Complys Canada hazard-assessment guide owns the general question of what a hazard assessment is and the broad hierarchy of controls. This page focuses on the field decision at mobilisation and after a change: does the planned method still fit this location, crew, equipment and time? If the answer is no, the FLHA should lead to a changed control or a stop, not a signature on an unusable form.

When to pause and make the field check

Make the check when the crew reaches a new work location, before a non-routine task, or at the start of a shift where conditions matter. Recheck when weather changes, another contractor enters the area, plant is substituted, ground conditions differ, isolation boundaries move or a previous control cannot be used. The interval should follow the risks and applicable site/client rules; a “daily” checkbox does not make a task safe for the rest of a changing day.

CCOHS describes field-level risk assessment as a method for dynamic work environments and as a supplement to formal assessments already completed before the day. The purpose is real-time identification and control, often with the team working through the task together. CCOHS risk assessment guidance. The Alberta government describes site-specific assessments as a way to catch hazards caused by changing circumstances at a location and to confirm planned controls are present. Its older handbook is useful explanatory material, but the current OHS Code controls any Alberta legal statement. Alberta hazard-assessment handbook; current Alberta Code.

Do not limit the process to construction. Mobile maintenance, utilities, forestry, service visits, loading yards and other changing workplaces can benefit from a field check. Its content and frequency should reflect the operation, not a preprinted industry label.

First, bring the planned method to the work face

Collect the relevant formal hazard assessment, safe work procedure, permit, lift plan, isolation plan, SDS or drawing before the crew starts. Ask which assumptions it makes: clear access, stable ground, an empty work zone, a particular machine, a specified chemical or the absence of another trade. Then compare those assumptions with the physical site.

This prevents the common failure where the team fills out an FLHA from memory while the actual safe method remains in a different folder. An FLHA should reveal whether the planned method is still applicable. If the formal procedure calls for a scaffold and the site has only a ladder, the answer is not to record “use care on ladder”; it is to stop and get an appropriate access method or have the method competently revised.

The field conversation should include the people doing the task. A supervisor alone may miss a pinch point, poor radio coverage or a machine fault that the operator sees immediately. Ask each affected person what has changed and how the work can fail. In Alberta, affected-worker involvement is an express Code requirement; elsewhere, check the applicable consultation duties and workplace arrangements. Alberta OHS Code, sections 7–8.

Walk the steps and the interfaces

Break the task into enough steps to expose different hazards, but not so many that the form becomes a transcript. For replacing a rooftop unit, steps might include delivery, lifting, access to roof, electrical isolation, removal, installation, testing and reopening the area. For a roadside repair, consider arrival, vehicle positioning, traffic control, work on the failed component and departure. At each step, ask who may be harmed, what event could cause it, and whether another crew, customer or member of the public is involved.

Look beyond the equipment the crew brought. Conditions introduced by the location may include overhead services, soft ground, icy access, poor lighting, public traffic, adjacent excavation, an occupied building or a chemical stored nearby. Controls should respond to those conditions. A list of generic hazards copied onto every form is less useful than a short note naming the one hazard that changed the work plan.

Scenario: ground conditions differ. A crew arrives to install temporary fencing. The planned assessment assumes a level dry surface, but overnight rain has softened the access route and mobile plant is now working nearby. The FLHA should identify the altered travel surface and plant interface, assign a person to establish a safe route and exclusion zone, and decide whether the task can proceed with suitable controls. If the correct equipment or separation cannot be arranged, the crew should delay the task and escalate. A signature beside “slips and trips” would not resolve the new risk.

Scenario: service isolation is uncertain. A maintenance worker reaches a plant room and finds an unlabeled supply not shown on the drawing. A field check should record the discrepancy and stop any work that depends on verified isolation. The team needs competent identification and confirmation of isolation under its procedure; an FLHA cannot itself prove that an electrical or mechanical system is de-energised.

Decide whether controls are adequate before work begins

For each hazard, record what control exists, whether it is in place today, and what additional control is needed. The control might be a changed sequence, a physical barrier, safer equipment, an exclusion zone, a revised permit or specialist verification. Training and PPE may be necessary but may not address a serious hazard on their own. CCOHS describes elimination, substitution, engineering, administrative and personal protective measures as categories of hazard control. CCOHS risk assessment.

Use a risk ranking if it genuinely helps prioritise action and your organisation defines its terms. Do not treat a colour or numeric score as permission to proceed. A high-consequence hazard can still require a stop even if someone has labelled it “unlikely”. Conversely, a known low-complexity task with effective controls need not be buried under several pages of calculated scores. The controlling question is whether the actual risk is appropriately controlled under the applicable law and method.

Name who does each control and how it will be verified. “Barricade installed by site supervisor before lift” is testable. “Be aware of lifting” is not. If a permit or specialist check is required, record its reference and owner. If the planned method is no longer valid, escalate to the person authorised to revise it rather than changing the safety-critical method informally in the FLHA margin.

Make the go, change or stop decision explicit

Conclude the field check with one of three practical outcomes: proceed under controls that are in place and understood; change the plan and rebrief before proceeding; or stop and escalate because a critical control or fact is missing. This is an editorial decision aid, not a statutory three-category form. The record should identify the decision maker and people briefed so a later reader can understand what happened.

If two employers share the area, communicate the result to the other duty holder. A fencing crew's revised plant route may affect the lifting contractor; the other team cannot respond to a change it has not heard about. If a change affects a permit or formal safe work procedure, update that document through the authorised channel as well. An FLHA complements those controls; it should not silently contradict them.

Keep a short but useful record

A practical FLHA record includes the site, task, date and time; crew and supervisor; applicable planned method/permit version; changed conditions; task steps and hazards; controls and action owners; outstanding stop points; decision; and later changes. Signatures or acknowledgments can show participation, but they do not prove the controls were implemented. Avoid collecting a signature before the conversation takes place.

The Alberta government's site-specific hazard-assessment template is a useful official form to compare with your own. N5-009 in this programme provides a separate editable FLHA template task, while this guide explains when and how the field decision is made. Before publication, check whether the final repository still treats those tasks as distinct and link them only once both owners exist.

Common mistakes include copying yesterday's form; listing PPE for every hazard without considering the better control; failing to check other trades; treating a risk score as authority; continuing when a permit, drawing or isolation is wrong; and not revisiting the decision when conditions change. Review near misses and repeated field changes: they may show that the formal procedure, schedule or contractor coordination needs improvement rather than another reminder to “pay attention”.

For teams managing many sites, ask the vendor to show how a current field record, its changed-control owner and the related formal assessment can be found together. The designated Complys Canada hazard assessment software page is the relevant commercial destination, but this guide does not claim that the deployed product automatically identifies hazards, validates legal controls or approves a safe start. Confirm current implementation before adding feature-specific language.

Source and claim register — checked 5 October 2026