One of our hotels has just had a fire risk assessment carried out by an external company, the overall fire risk rating was given as "Moderate" even though there are no actions required and all comments throughout the report were positive. When we questioned the risk assessor, he said that as the hotel has a bar serving alcohol it would be nearly impossible for the hotel to have a fire risk rating below "Moderate"! Can anyone confirm, or otherwise, if this is true, as we consider a "Moderate" rating to be something that we actively strive to improve upon, not the best that we can hope for. Thanks very much in anticipation of your help and comments.

When asked to explain the rating, we were told that any building that has the public in it and serves alcohol will only get a "Moderate" rating at best, irrespective of how good the building safety and fire management is

'Moderate' suggests to me that efforts are needed to reduce the fire risk. So for him to then say 'no actions required' is not logical. I do FRA following the methodology of PAS79. I usually arrive at a moderate rating if : Likelihood of fire: Medium: potential ignition sources with fire hazards do exist, subject to appropriate controls and Potential of harm: Moderate: Outbreak of fire could foreseeably result in injury but it is unlikely to involve fatalities. So I would ask him if he is worried about the existing potential ignition sources or injuries during evacuation. Since no one will be smoking, the serving of alcohol should not increase risk more than serving coffee, but one could consider inebriated persons will find difficulty responding appropriately to a fire alarm - and the corrective action would be to avoid inebriating your customers? :o) John

The one aspect of PAS 79 I absolutely dislike is its risk rating matrix and the criteria it uses for likelihood & severity to arrive at the "final risk level". Unless that aspect is very clearly understood by both the assessor and the client, there is no doubt that it leads to "confusion". The descriptions of the final risk levels in PAS 79 are Trivial No action is required and no detailed records need be kept. Tolerable No major additional fire precautions required. However, there might be a need for reasonably practicable improvements that involve minor or limited cost. Moderate It is essential that efforts are made to reduce the risk. Risk reduction measures, which should take cost into account, should be implemented within a defined time period. Where moderate risk is associated with consequences that constitute extreme harm, further assessment might be required to establish more precisely the likelihood of harm as a basis for determining the priority for improved control measures. Substantial Considerable resources might have to be allocated to reduce the risk. If the premises are unoccupied, it should not be occupied until the risk has been reduced. If the premises are occupied, urgent action should be taken. Intolerable Premises (or relevant area) should not be occupied until the risk is reduced. Pls PM me for more info

David, I have to agree with you! One thing I have observed in UK hotels unlike Ireland is that there are no CO2 extinguishers in place, just water or foam. The only thing that can realistically cause fire in the public areas of a hotel are an electrical fault or some discarding an illicitly lit cigarette. Other than that, you have the usual risks associated with kitchens and laundries if there is one present. Ciarán Delaney IOSH Council

If I were in your place, I would seriously question the consultant assessor to "technically" explain the definition/description of arriving at the overall risk as "Moderate Risk" as per PAS 79 when there are no additional actions identified! I would not personally accept the reasoning that it is just due to the serving of alcohol in the bar that is the primary factor. The description of "Moderate" as per PAS 79 is:- It is essential that efforts are made to reduce the risk. Risk reduction measures, which should take cost into account, should be implemented within a defined time period. Where moderate risk is associated with consequences that constitute extreme harm, further assessment might be required to establish more precisely the likelihood of harm as a basis for determining the priority for improved control measures" Obviously, it depends upon yourself how much more time& resources you want to expend over this!

This is why I don't use PAS 79! Its ok to use these terms when communicating with another H&S professional or engineer, but the average non technical punter just doesn't understand it - and neither (by the looks of this thread) does the professional here!! I think the layout and terms in PAS 79 are not user friendly. Frankly, it sometimes seems like a document which is more aimed at making the risk assessor look professional, than it is a simple document to communicate a simple message

Regarding comments above that clients/punters won't understand PAS79 methodology, it is surely up to the assessor to make the FRA understood by the client. When I adopted PAS79 into my FRA method for customers, I used it to MAKE the process/documentation more understandable to clients, to include recording all our thoughts about possible fire scenarios, and also keep a record of past incidents, and to review all of these things whenever we review the FRA. A 'moderate risk' conclusion can list actions that we think could reduce risks even further. Some of these actions may be agreed and given a set time-frame, but there may be other possible actions e.g. replace very old electrical equipment, seek alternative to a highly flammable solvent, install a louder alarm in noisy factory, all of which could mean significant cost. For me it's a record that we have considered these issues, for the customer he has to weigh up costs and is left to decide whether to complete those actions in a time-frame. John