Preliminary results and Fire Safety CiC intensity Index (September Data)
A joint Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CiC) has been launched during autumn for Fire Safety compliance under the following regimes
- Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MoU)
- Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding (Tokyo MoU)
- Black Sea MoU
- Caribbean MoU
- Indian Ocean MoU
The Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CiC) aims to verify compliance with the Fire Safety implementation on board ships. The inspection campaign period has been set to last from 1st September 2023 to 30th November 2023. This Concentrated Inspection Campaign, 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).
Please see Annex A for the Inspection Checklist
Please See Annex B for the list of CiC related Deficiency Codes, corresponding to each question
Please See Annex C for the methodology used to calculate the CiC Intensity Index
The following outlines the findings related with CiC per MoU under review for the month of September.
| MoU | Ports with PSCI | # PSCIs Sep. 23 | Total # DEF Sep. 23 | # CiC DEF Sep. 23 | % CiC DEF Sep. 23 | % CiC DEF L12M | CiC Intensity Index % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paris MoU | 151 | 767 | 2,356 | 580 | 24.6% | 17.8% | + 38.2% |
| Tokyo MoU | 176 | 2,618 | 4,515 | 1,443 | 31.9% | 20.7% | + 54.1% |
| Black Sea | 14 | 349 | 1,267 | 146 | 11.5% | 12.05% | – 4.5% |
| Caribbean | 2 | 17 | 21 | 6 | 28.5% | 20.1% | + 41.7% |
| Indian Ocean | 34 | 376 | 643 | 145 | 22.5% | 16.6% | + 35.5% |
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. 23 | Total # DEF Sep. 23 | # CiC DEF Sep. 23 | % CiC DEF Sep. 23 | % CiC DEF L12M | CiC Intensity Index % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Klaipeda | Lithuania | 22 | 33 | 6 | 18.18% | 5.37% | 238.6% |
| Nantes-Saint Nazaire | France | 12 | 9 | 5 | 55.56% | 19.48% | 185.2% |
| Amsterdam | Netherlands | 13 | 42 | 20 | 47.62% | 18.00% | 164.6% |
| Dunkerque | France | 12 | 17 | 5 | 29.41% | 15.25% | 92.9% |
| Lavrion | Greece | 15 | 46 | 10 | 21.74% | 12.43% | 74.8% |
| Zeebrugge | Belgium | 13 | 23 | 7 | 30.43% | 17.77% | 71.3% |
| Piraeus | Greece | 13 | 70 | 20 | 28.57% | 16.97% | 68.4% |
| Marseille | France | 22 | 34 | 12 | 35.29% | 23.48% | 50.3% |
| Antwerpen | Belgium | 49 | 210 | 50 | 23.81% | 18.00% | 32.3% |
| Rotterdam | Netherlands | 37 | 83 | 23 | 27.71% | 21.13% | 31.1% |
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. 23 | Total # DEF Sep. 23 | # CiC DEF Sep. 23 | % CiC DEF Sep. 23 | % CiC DEF L12M | CiC Intensity Index % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yokohama | Japan | 20 | 16 | 6 | 44.44% | 19.00% | 133.9% |
| Newcastle, NSW | Australia | 28 | 14 | 5 | 35.90% | 15.55% | 130.8% |
| Qingdao | China | 60 | 73 | 20 | 48.99% | 21.58% | 127.1% |
| Gladstone, QLD | Australia | 21 | 8 | 5 | 17.78% | 8.15% | 118.1% |
| Manila | Philippines | 33 | 18 | 10 | 35.29% | 18.56% | 90.1% |
| Busan | South Korea | 47 | 21 | 7 | 40.38% | 21.27% | 89.8% |
| Shanghai | China | 107 | 80 | 20 | 35.71% | 18.86% | 89.4% |
| Guangzhou | China | 47 | 49 | 12 | 36.30% | 19.29% | 88.2% |
| Antwerpen | China | 44 | 24 | 50 | 35.29% | 19.98% | 77.5% |
| Shenzhen | Russia | 42 | 32 | 23 | 23.70% | 13.84% | 71.2% |
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. 23 | Total # DEF Sep. 23 | # CiC DEF Sep. 23 | % CiC DEF Sep. 23 | % CiC DEF L12M | CiC Intensity Index % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Izmail | Turkey | 38 | 4 | 2 | 50.00% | 16.19% | 208.9% |
| Taman | Russia | 40 | 152 | 27 | 17.76% | 10.88% | 63.3% |
| Tuapse | Romania | 20 | 81 | 25 | 30.86% | 22.45% | 37.5% |
| Poti | Georgia | 23 | 51 | 6 | 11.76% | 9.65% | 21.9% |
| Novorossiysk | Russia | 95 | 386 | 49 | 12.69% | 11.03% | 15.1% |
PSCI: Port State Control Inspections
DEF: Deficiency
CIC: Concentrated Inspection Campaign
L12M: Last 12 Months
Annex A: Fire Safety Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CiC) Questionnaire
The list with the CiC questions is as follows:
| No | Description | Yes | No | Detention |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Are the emergency escape routes maintained in a safe condition? | |||
| 2. | Are the fire doors maintained in good working condition? | |||
| 3. | Has the fixed fire detection and fire alarm systems, been periodically tested in accordance with the requirements of the Administration? | |||
| 4. | Are ventilation closing appliances capable of being closed? | |||
| 5. | Are the means of control for power ventilation of machinery spaces operable from two grouped positions? | |||
| 6. | Can each fire pump deliver at least the two required jets of water? | |||
| 7. | Are the means of control provided in a position outside the machinery space for stopping ventilation and oil transfer equipment operational? | |||
| 8. | Is the room for the fixed gas fire extinguishing medium used only for this purpose? | |||
| 9. | Are the valves used in the fire main line operational? | |||
| 10. | Where a fire drill was witnessed, was it found to be satisfactory? |
All of above items may lead to Detention if the findings are not on the satisfaction of PSCO.
Annex B: Fire Safety Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CiC) corresponding Deficiency Codes
Deficiency Codes Related to Inspection Campaign
| No | Questions and possible findings | Related PSC Deficiency Codes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Are the emergency escape routes maintained in a safe condition? | 07120 – Means of escape 04103 – Emergency, lighting, batteries, and switches |
| 2. | 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 |
| 3. | 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 |
| 4. | Are ventilation closing appliances capable of being closed? | 03108 – Ventilators, air pipes, casings 07115 – Fire-dampers 07116 – Ventilation |
| 5. | 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 |
| 6. | 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 |
| 7. | 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 |
| 8. | 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 |
| 9. | 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 |
| 10. | 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) |
The listed items if identified as Deficiencies on board, are descripted by a set of Deficiency Codes ( a question may create more than one Deficiency Codes as findings). There are a total of 29 different codes to support the findings for Fire Safety (including drills and supportive equipment).
Annex C: Fire Safety Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CiC) Intensity Index Methodology
To assess the CiC Intensity Index a simple methodology has been applied 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 in Annex B (in relation to the CiC Questions) have been analysed for these periods under review (L12M before the CiC and the CiC Period).
The methodology is very simple to determine the CiC Intensity ion any port in relation with CIC related deficiency codes and findings.
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 till August 2023.
B = CIC Deficiency Codes Share % (of Total Deficiencies in any given port) for September.
Explanation and Meaning
The higher the percentage of CIC Intensity Index, the higher the focus (i.e. intensity) on the CiC related Questions and Corresponding Findings.
About RISK4SEA | www.risk4sea.com | Client List https://bit.ly/3L4ulcI
RISK4SEA is a SaaS PSC Intelligence platform, illuminating PSC performance to Prepare/Assess PSC inspections, Benchmark against competition and Automate PSC functions and alerts to eliminate detentions and minimize OPEX.