既存石化工廠火災風險評估與改善分析之研究

Research on fire risk assessment and improvement analysis of existing petrochemical plants

本研究火災風險評估分為「火災絕對風險評估」以及「火災相對風險評估」，「火災絕對風險評估」為我國法令要求下之本質風險，以美國消防協會NFPA551方法為主體，納入古斯塔夫法、法令檢核、商業火災保險金額、化學品特性、製程使用等條件，核算「火災絕對風險等級」。「火災相對風險評估」則為評估採取優於我國法令火災預防措施後之現有風險，透過檢視已實施優於法令之火災預防措施，分為設施面及管理面核算分數，將原有火災絕對風險等級降級藉此獲得「火災相對風險等級」。
本研究以5家石化工廠為標的實施火災風險評估，其中C石化工廠於原評估時之火災絕對風險等級為最嚴重之等級「D-」，而透過所實施之優於法令措施後，其火災相對風險等級可達最優良等級「A」，而D石化工廠於原評估時之火災絕對風險等級為「C-」，因所實施之優於法令措施未達本研究降級標準，故風險等級未有調整。
為辨識相互間差異，本研究依照我國中小企業認定標準，將5家石化工廠分為大型企業及中小企業進行比較分析，依本研究比較分析結果顯示，大型企業若10年內曾發生過重大火災新聞事故，或是資本額越大者，相較於同規模企業，願意投入較多設施面優化項目。而中小企業中資本額較高者，不代表其具有較高意願實施火災預防措施。
本研究火災風險評估可以量化石化工廠現有火災風險，辨識不同石化工廠火災風險差異，呈現工廠設施面與管理面實際狀況做為消防機關行政參考。且透過本研究比較分析建議後，5家石化工廠皆能明顯下降火災風險等級。

This study divides fire risk assessment into two categories: absolute fire risk assessment and relative fire risk assessment. The absolute fire risk assessment represents the inherent risk of a facility that meets the minimum requirements of national regulations, primarily based on the NFPA 551 method developed by the U.S. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The assessment incorporates factors such as the Gustav Method, regulatory compliance, commercial fire insurance value, chemical properties, and process usage to calculate the absolute fire risk level.
The relative fire risk assessment, on the other hand, evaluates the existing risk after implementing fire prevention measures that exceed national regulatory requirements. This assessment examines both facility-related and management-related aspects of preventive measures to quantify improvement scores. The resulting downgrade of the original absolute fire risk level produces the relative fire risk level.
Five petrochemical plants were selected as case studies for this research. Among them, Plant C was initially rated at the most severe level,“D–”, in the absolute risk assessment. However, after implementing enhanced fire prevention measures beyond legal requirements, its relative fire risk level improved to the best rating,“A”. In contrast, Plant D, originally rated“C–”, failed to qualify for a risk downgrade because its additional measures did not meet the downgrade criteria established in this study.
To identify differences among the plants, the five petrochemical companies were categorized into large enterprises and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) according to Taiwan’s SME classification standards. Comparative analysis revealed that large enterprises with higher capital amounts or with records of major fire incidents within the past decade tend to invest more heavily in facility-based improvements than companies of similar scale. However, among SMEs, a higher capital amount does not necessarily indicate a stronger willingness to implement fire prevention measures.
This fire risk assessment framework provides a quantitative method to evaluate the current fire risk levels of petrochemical plants, identify inter-plant differences, and quantitatively incorporate both facility and management conditions. The results can serve as an administrative reference for fire authorities.