Scenario-Driven Methodology for Cascading Disasters Risk Assessment of Earthquake on Chemical Industrial Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read the paper of Yang et al. about the cascade disaster triggered by an earthquake in the chemical industrial park. I’m sorry, but I think the paper is extremely poor in the present version and cannot be accepted for publication. Anyway, as I think that the presentation of the work is poor but maybe the methodology could be valid, with a strong revision the paper can be reconsidered. In particular the language needs to be revised involving an English native speaker or with the MDPI language editing service. You spoke about “Wenchuan earthquake” which normally is the 12 May 2008 earthquake that struggled China. I think you spoke of this earthquake, also considering the description of the disaster followed this catastrophic event, but why did you write magnitude 7.2 at line 90? The Wenchuan earthquake of 12-May-2008 had an estimated moment magnitude between 7.8 and 7.9! Furthermore, the methodology description needs to be improved. I understand that you claim with your paper that you need to analyse together the single disaster events in a common system and I totally agree with the authors, but what is your contribution? The result from this paper must be better presented and its implications cannot be limited to some generic sentences that could help the rescue, medical response etc. I mean these sentences are okay, but you need to add what is the gain with your work. I hope you can significantly improve the manuscript and I provide you below some other questions and specific points.

Specific questions:

·        Line 91. You must specify when (date and time UT and/or Chinese time) the earthquake occurred, close to which city? And at least the epicentral coordinates.

·        Lines 127 – 138 and Figure 3. This descpriont and the relative figure must be improved. It is not clear the method. For example what are the numbers in fig. 3? In the caption you say number of events and “estimates”. How are the estimates obtained? Please improve this section significantly.

·        Line 173. This sentence requires a reference.

·        In Figure 4, you put “Artificial factors” in Natural disaster column, but the artificial factors influence the impact on human life and activities but not the event (the earthqauke in this case). So, in my opinion, this needs to be shifted and made independent from the Natural hazard, that if hit a region with vulnerable structures becomes a disaster.

·        Line 264. The number of aftershock and their magnitude (the magnitude is important) is something well known, for example, by the Omori-Utsu law:

o   Jure Žalohar, Chapter 10 - Omori's Law, in Developments in Structural Geology and Tectonics, Elsevier, Volume 2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814580-7.00010-1

Minor points:

·        Line 21. Please revise the sentence. There is a typo: “natech”, what is it?

·        Line 26. I think it’s better to specify “low probability of occurrence in time”

·        Line 30. I suggest to substitute “significance” with “concern”

·        Line 32. Normally this earthquake that struggled Japan in 2011 is called “Tohoku great earthqauke”. Fukushima is the name of the nuclear power plant that experienced critical damages because the Tsunami induced by the same earthqauke covered the electrical power emergency generators with ocean water. This caused electrical power interruption to water pumps that cool the core of the electric nuclear power that even if it was automatically and successfully shut down it requires the continuos and active cooling. You can describe better this case.

·        Line 35. I suggest to write “...earthquakes can easily cause...”

·        Line 36, “loss of casualties” à “human losses” or just “casualties”

·        Line 50. This sentence is unreadable. Maybe you want to say: “Increasing attention have been paid to the importance of chemical industrial parks.

·        Line 58. Please define HZAOP

·        Line 63. I think it’s better “a” in front of “chemical industrial park”. There is no dot at the end, is it concluded the sentence?

·        Line 71. I think it’s better to add “following an earthquake” after “fire” or this study is not related to earthquakes?

·        Lines 92/93. The description of Section 1 at the end of Section 1 is unuseful you can remove.

·        Line 123. The sentence lack the “subject”. You can add “We” at the beginning

·        Line 206. A sentence cannot start with “And”. You can put “In addition, “

·        Line 212, “ directly due to earthquakes”

·        Line 231. I think you mean that “proving that the impact of the selected event could be mitigated by opportune measures”. Right? Please revise the sentence

·         Line 249. Maybe you mean “cannot predict the earthquake”

·        Line 267. You can simply say “improved” instead of “ artificially changed”

·        Line 272. What do you mean by “to ease public dissatisfaction”?

·        Lines 286-290. I know that Changbaishan is a volcano in Jilin province in China. Are you speaking of the risk of an eruption of this volcano? Or still earthquake? Please be more clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper processes-2062351 is a nice work on the evolution process of cascade disaster in a chemical industrial park after the Wenchuan earthquake. The Introduction is sufficient and the references very recent. The methods are described good apart from some minor issues. Finally the paper, evaluates the proposed scenario-driven risk assessment method to reflect the relationship among the derived events.

The paper is suggested for publication after some minor changes shown below

Line 26: “low probability”, please change

Line 36:”to cause”==> “cause”

Line 39: Pescarolo and Alexander (2015), The reference should include a number instead pf (2015).

Line 40: [5]investigated ==> [5] investigated. 

This is repeated in several references.

The CIA-DISM should be described more analytically since not all readers are familiar with this topic.

Lines 172-173 should include reference

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I would like to thank you so much for your detailed answers and explanations to my questions. I am fully satisfied with your answers, and I checked the revised paper which I think is now more clear; you clearly stated in the conclusion which is your contribution to this research and also provided some future research paths to improve the method further. I don't have any other suggestions except recommend the paper for publication in Processes. 

Thank you and congratulations!

Very minors:

- Line 95. Please add "M=" before magnitude: "after the M=8.0 Wenchuan"

- Line 342. You can say "we plan" (more professional) instead of "we will try", but it's okay also in this way.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx