{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03632148377125193, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0061823802163833074, 'mean_word_length': 5.641025641025641, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Risk Analysis and the Seveso II Directive Results of a comparative methodological study

The European Council’s ”Seveso II Directive” (96/82/EC) is the key element of European legislation on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. Not least due to this Directive, risk assessment and risk management are subjects of (still) increasing importance in the chemical process industry. It requires the determination and analysis of risks in process plants by applying systematic „deterministic“ and „probabilistic“ methods and procedures (”risk shall mean the likelihood of a specific effect occurring within a specified period or in specified circumstances”, 96/82/EC). There are several well known approaches to analyse risks, differing with respect to depth, accuracy and their applicability. Therefore, the German „Federal Institute for Material Research and Testing“ (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und prüfung BAM), Berlin, the „Gesellschaft für Anlagen und Reaktorsicherheit“ (GRS), Cologne, and TÜV SÜD, Munich, decided to perform a comparative risk study on a real plant used for the storage (including transport) of Chlorine to identify strengths and disadvantages of the different approaches. In this paper we present some important results of the study.