The RISK4SEA SaaS PSC Intelligence platform issued preliminary results (September – October) of this year’s Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on Fire Safety to shed light on the key related deficiencies found onboard, revealing that there are 29 different codes to support the findings for Fire Safety (including drills and supportive equipment).
To remind, this CIC on fire safety has started since 1st September 2023 and it will last on 30th November 2023. This CIC is conducted in parallel with regular PSC Inspections, meaning that when a PSCO is boarding a vessel for inspection, apart from the checklist for the regular PSC inspection, follows an additional CIC Checklist, framed by a list of 10 additional questions focusing on CiC subject (Fire Safety).
The following regimes are taking part in the campaign:
- Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MoU)
- Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding (Tokyo MoU)
- Black Sea MoU
- Caribbean MoU
- Indian Ocean MoU
As per RISK4SEA data, the findings related with CIC per MoU for the month of September & October are as follows:
| MoU | Ports with PSCI | # PSCIs Sep & Oct 23 |
Total # DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
# CIC DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
% CIC DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
% CIC DEF L12M |
CIC Intensity Index % |
| Paris MoU | 154 | 1,509 | 2,590 | 651 | 25% | 18% | +39% |
| Tokyo MoU | 178 | 5,302 | 4,890 | 1,539 | 32% | 20% | +60% |
| Black Sea | 14 | 517 | 892 | 98 | 11% | 13% | -15% |
| Caribbean | 2 | 34 | 6 | 29 | 21% | 22% | -4.5% |
| Indian Ocean | 32 | 809 | 730 | 151 | 20% | 18% | +17% |
source: RISK4SEA
Ports with Higher CiC Intensity Index (for Paris, Tokyo and Black Sea MoU)
The following are the Top 10 ports with higher CiC intensity Index for Paris MoU (sorted by Higher CiC Intensity Index)
| Port | Country | # PSCIs Sep & Oct 23 |
Total # DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
# CIC DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
% CIC DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
% CIC DEF L12M |
CIC Intensity Index % |
| Klaipeda | Lithuania | 40 | 33 | 6 | 18% | 5% | 239% |
| Amsterdam | Netherlands | 27 | 47 | 21 | 45% | 18% | 151% |
| Zeebrugge | Belgium | 28 | 23 | 7 | 30% | 18% | 68.2% |
| Piraeus | Greece | 57 | 70 | 20 | 29% | 18% | 61.1% |
| Bremerhaven | Germany | 23 | 23 | 5 | 22% | 15% | 41.6% |
| Antwerpen | Belgium | 115 | 239 | 59 | 25% | 18% | 35.5% |
| Marseille (GPM) | France | 43 | 61 | 19 | 31% | 24% | 30.7% |
| Ravenna | Italy | 23 | 106 | 15 | 14% | 11% | 25.3% |
| Gent | Belgium | 23 | 31 | 6 | 19% | 16% | 23.7% |
| Rotterdam | Netherlands | 91 | 112 | 29 | 26% | 21% | 21.1% |
source: RISK4SEA
The following are the Top 10 ports with higher CiC intensity Index for Tokyo MoU (sorted by Higher CiC Intensity Index)
| Port | Country | # PSCIs Sep & Oct 23 |
Total # DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
# CIC DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
% CIC DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
% CIC DEF L12M |
CIC Intensity Index % |
| Qingdao | China | 105 | 80 | 168 | 76% | 22% | 116% |
| Newcastle, NSW | Australia | 72 | 17 | 53 | 24% | 16% | 103% |
| Shanghai | China | 182 | 95 | 264 | 52% | 19% | 90% |
| Busan | South Korea | 72 | 22 | 55 | 31% | 22% | 84% |
| Guangzhou | Philippines | 108 | 52 | 144 | 48% | 20% | 83% |
| Shenzhen | China | 77 | 24 | 68 | 31% | 20% | 77% |
| Dalian | China | 88 | 31 | 92 | 35% | 23% | 49% |
| Hong Kong | China | 91 | 39 | 91 | 43% | 29% | 46% |
| Tianjin | China | 130 | 56 | 175 | 43% | 24% | 34% |
| Haiphong | Vietnam | 104 | 18 | 42 | 17% | 34% | 28% |
source: RISK4SEA
The following are the Top 5 ports with higher CiC intensity Index for Black Sea MoU (sorted by Higher CiC Intensity Index)
| Port | Country | # PSCIs Sep & Oct 23 |
Total # DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
# CIC DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
% CIC DEF Sep & Oct 23 |
% CIC DEF L12M |
CIC Intensity Index % |
| Izmail | Turkey | 86 | 4 | 2 | 50.00% | 16.05% | 211.6% |
| Taman | Russia | 69 | 163 | 28 | 17.18% | 11.01% | 56.0% |
| Tuapse | Romania | 44 | 61 | 25 | 30.86% | 22.73% | 35.8% |
| Poti | Georgia | 39 | 51 | 6 | 11.76% | 10.04% | 17.2% |
| Novorossiysk | Russia | 198 | 386 | 49 | 12.69% | 10.95% | 15.9% |
source: RISK4SEA
PSCI: Port State Control Inspections
DEF: Deficiency
CIC: Concentrated Inspection Campaign
L12M: Last 12 Months
Fire Safety Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CiC) corresponding Deficiency Codes
The Deficiency Codes related to Inspection Campaign, as per each Question of the CIC questionnaire are as follows:
Q1 Are the emergency escape routes maintained in a safe condition?
07120 – Means of escape
04103 – Emergency, lighting, batteries, and switches
Q2 Are the fire doors maintained in good working condition?
03107 – Doors
07105 – Fire doors/openings in fire-resisting divisions
07101 – Fire prevention structural integrity
07103 – Division – decks, bulkheads, and penetrations
Q3 Has the fixed fire detection and fire alarm systems, been periodically tested in accordance with the requirements of the Administration?
07106 – Fire detection and alarm system
07121 – Crew alarm
07108 – Ready availability of firefighting equipment
07109 – Fixed fire extinguishing installation
07110 – Firefighting equipment and appliances
Q4 Are ventilation closing appliances capable of being closed?
03108 – Ventilators, air pipes, casings
07115 – Fire-dampers
07116 – Ventilation
Q5 Are the means of control for power ventilation of machinery spaces operable from two grouped positions?
07116 – Ventilation
07114 – Remote Means of control (opening, pumps, ventilation, etc.) Machinery spaces
Q6 Can each fire pump deliver at least the two required jets of water?
04102 – Emergency fire pump and its pipes
07113 – Fire pumps and its pipes
Q7 Are the means of control provided in a position outside the machinery space for stopping ventilation and oil transfer equipment operational?
07114 – Remote Means of control (opening, pumps, ventilation, etc.) Machinery spaces
07116 – Ventilation
07122 – Fire control plan
07123 – Operation of Fire protection systems
07124 – Maintenance of Fire protection systems
Q8 Is the room for the fixed gas fire extinguishing medium used only for this purpose?
07108 – Ready availability of firefighting equipment
07109 – Fixed fire extinguishing installation
07122 – Fire control plan
Q9 Are the valves used in the fire main line operational?
07108 – Ready availability of firefighting equipment
07110 – Firefighting equipment and appliances 07113 – Fire pumps and its pipes
07123 – Operation of Fire protection systems
07124 – Maintenance of Fire protection systems
Q10 Where a fire drill was witnessed, was it found to be satisfactory?
04109 – Fire drills
07122 – Fire control plan
07125 – Evaluation of crew performance (fire drills)
To assess the CiC Intensity Index, RISK4SEA has applied a methodology based on the % share of CiC Deficiency Findings before the CiC period (namely, the Last 12 months) and the period where CiC is being applied.
The CiC corresponding Deficiency codes that are listed above (in relation to the CiC Questions) have been analysed for these periods under review (L12M before the CiC and the CiC Period)
The CiC Intensity Index is calculated as follows
CIC Intensity Index = { [B – A]/A }%
A = CIC Deficiency Codes Share % (of Total Deficiencies in any given port) for the Last 12 Months (L12M), i.e. the period September 2022 until August 2023.
B = CIC Deficiency Codes Share % (of Total Deficiencies in any given port) for September & October
The higher the percentage of CIC Intensity Index, the higher the focus (i.e. intensity) on the CiC related Questions and Corresponding Findings.
RISK4SEA (www.risk4sea.com) is a SaaS PSC Intelligence platform, illuminating PSC performance to Prepare/Assess PSC inspections, Benchmark against competition and Automate PSC functions & alerts to eliminate detentions and minimize OPEX.
