Industrial and Environmental Disaster Risk Assessment for Hazardous Materials in Balikpapan City, East Kalimantan, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper addresses a very important topic and worth consideration for publishing.  However, the paper, in its current form can not be published.  It needs major revisions.

 

1.     Literature review: There are plenty of papers in the related topic.  I suggest a thorough review of literatures and find out the gaps and justify how the current paper makes a value addition to the topic.  

2.     Methodology: the methodology part is very poor and needs substantial revisions. It is not clear how the FGDs were conducted, how the participants were chosen, which were the key questions asked. The same is for the in-depth interviews.  I suggest that once the authors clarify the key gaps in the literature review part, and link it to the key research questions, it is important that they make an analytical framework for the study including both FGD and in-depth interview. After that, they can link it to the key findings. 

3.     It was not clear how the risk analysis was conducted, and where from the data came, and how it is validated. 

4.     There is also a components of risk mapping, and it is not clear in the methodology how it was conducted. 

5.     The above methodological drawback is the most critical part of the paper and needs significant improvements. Without this, the paper is a mere attempt to highlight the key challenges related to industrial disasters. 

6.     While the risk analysis is done and there is a ranking of low, medium and high, it is not clear whether it is for single hazards, multiple hazards or all hazards.  It is mentioned risk identification of hazardous materials in table 4, but not sure how the analysis was conducted. 

7.     Section 3.5: Section title is a bit odd, please check it. 

8.     Discussion part is too descriptive, need more analytical insights, which is missing significantly. 

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

 

The paper addresses a very important topic and worth consideration for publishing.  However, the paper, in its current form, cannot be published.  It needs major revisions.

 

1. Literature review: There are plenty of papers in the related topic.  I suggest a thorough review of literatures and find out the gaps and justify how the current paper makes a value addition to the topic. 

Response: Gaps have been identified as follows in the last paragraph of the introduction section:

Currently, there is limited information and knowledge gaps on the hazardous material emitted from particular industrial activities at Balikpapan. At the same time, Balikpapan is a growing city and the population may be impacted by the presence and the emissions of hazardous and toxic materials.

1. Methodology: the methodology part is very poor and needs substantial revisions. It is not clear how the FGDs were conducted, how the participants were chosen, which were the key questions asked. The same is for the in-depth interviews.  I suggest that once the authors clarify the key gaps in the literature review part, and link it to the key research questions, it is important that they make an analytical framework for the study including both FGD and in-depth interview. After that, they can link it to the key findings. 

 

Response:  In-depth interviews and FGDs were conducted online, the participants were chosen by local District environment, which focus on high priority industries, or major hazard industries. Several key questions asked were including number of hazardous material, quantity, hazard characteristic, sources, impact to human and environment number of population insided and outside industry.

 

Methodological Framework has been amended as below:

 

 

Analytical framework has been amended as below:

 

 

1. It was not clear how the risk analysis was conducted, and where from the data came, and how it is validated. 

Response: The risk analysis was conducted using semi-quantitative approach and conducted using data from industries and it is validated by interviews and FGDs. Furthermore, method calculated using a proven method by Ministry of Environmental and Forestry (MOEF). The risk matrix for risk analysis provided in Figure 4.

 

 

 

1. There is also a components of risk mapping, and it is not clear in the methodology how it was conducted. ? Rio

Response: The risk mapping methods have been revised as follows:

 

2.1 Study area

This study was carried out in the city of Balikpapan, East Kalimantan province (see Fig. 1) and this city is consisting of five sub-districts including Balikpapan Kota, Balikpapan Barat, Balikpapan Utara, Balikpapan Timur, and Balikpapan Selatan. Balikpapan's geocoordinates were 116.7290⁰ - 117.0215⁰ east longitude and 1.0421⁰ – 1.2851⁰ south latitude. Balikpapan sizing 503.3 km² is largely hilly (85%), with only a few flat sections (15%) around the shore and bordering the steep hills. The hills are just about 100 meters (330 feet) higher than the lowlands below. Balikpapan's elevation ranges from 0 to 80 meters (260 feet) above sea level. The city proper is situated on the eastern side of Balikpapan bay. The majority of the soil of Balikpapan is yellow-reddish podsolic soil with alluvial and quartz sand, making it prone to erosion. Due to the lack of precipitation, Balikpapan has a tropical rainforest climate (Af). The city receives 2,400 millimeters (94 inches) of rain per year on average. Throughout the year, the weather in Balikpapan is quite consistent. The city does not have noticeably wetter or drier seasons, and typical temperatures are practically comparable throughout the year, hovering around 26 to 27 ⁰C.

Balikpapan is the second most populous city in East Kalimantan, behind Samarinda, with a population of 688,318 according to the 2020 census. Balikpapan began as a fishing community constructed by Buginese people in the nineteenth century. The first oil drilling began in Balikpapan on February 10, 1897, which was later designated as the city's anniversary. Balikpapan was awarded municipal status by the Dutch East Indies colonial authority in 1899. Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij (BPM) established the city as its headquarters in 1907 and hired skilled laborers, engineers, and managers from abroad. Following Indonesia's independence, BPM expanded its operations in Balikpapan until 1965, when Indonesia’s national oil company, Indonesia's state-owned oil corporation, assumed control of BPM and its oil exploration efforts.

 

Risk mapping

This research collected two types of data. First is the data collected for developing the sub-district of Balikpapan City. In this study, the sub-district of Balikpapan City was obtained based on the base map. First, the shape files of Balikpapan polygon were prepared. This polygon represents the Balikpapan City divided into five sub-districts. The second data was collected from data analysis of level of risk. Risk mapping using GIS aiming to generate industrial hazardous risk map in Balikpapan City, East Kalimantan. GIS mapping revealed trends, distribution, and identification areas of the highest risk.

 

1. The above methodological drawback is the most critical part of the paper and needs significant improvements. Without this, the paper is a mere attempt to highlight the key challenges related to industrial disasters. 

Response :

The methodological drawback has now been significantly improved by adding the methodological, analytical framework and detailed description on how the data was collected, analyzed and presented in Figure 1 & 2.

 

 

1. While the risk analysis is done and there is a ranking of low, medium and high, it is not clear whether it is for single hazards, multiple hazards or all hazards.  It is mentioned risk identification of hazardous materials in table 4, but not sure how the analysis was conducted. 

 

Response :

The data was collected based on single hazardous materials which contain a mixture of chemicals such as oil and gas hazardous materials, mining chemicals, water treatment materials. The hazards were determined based on the materials hazards category or hazardous materials characteristics such as flammable, explosive, infectious, corrosive. It has been amended as the Table description below See Table Risk Score calculation. (Excel file) or Table 1.

 

1. Section 3.5: Section title is a bit odd, please check it.

Response: The tittle has been revised to:

Hazardous material mapping in Balikpapan

1. Discussion part is too descriptive, need more analytical insights, which is missing significantly.

Response: Discussion part has been expanded and analyzed deeply as requested as follows

 

Results from GIS mapping obtained in this study indicating risks of hazardous materials in particular coastal areas are comparable from previous studies (Guo et al., 2022).   Coastal originated hazardous material has long been recognized as an ever-increasing problem for the nearby oceans and coastal community. It contaminates both beaches and sea surfaces and is consumed by fish, seabirds, and other creatures even human.  Hazardous material released due to the Dalian New Port oil spill happened on 16 July 2010, has emitted approximate 35,000 tonnes of crude oil into the coastal water. Potential releases of hazardous materal in Balikpapan are also comparable to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the northern Gulf of Mexico.

Despite this study has provided information of particular industries and companies that pose hazardous materials to the Balikpapan City including its coastal areas. this study still has several limitations. The information on hazardous materials should be compared with the environmental data representing and justifying the impacts of the presences of those hazardous materials. These variables were not measured in this study and it is recommended to assess those variables in the future studies. This study has used GIS mapping as tool to measure and monitor the hazardous material presence and distribution in particular coastal areas. To obtain and expand monitoring coverages in the terms of spatial and temporal contexts, then in the future it is recommended to use and develop various GIS and remote sensing monitoring tools (Azif et al., 2022).

 

 

Additional refferences:

Asif, Z., Chen, Z., An,  C., Dong, .J (2022). Environmental impacts and challenges associated with oil spills on shorelines. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 10. 762. 10.3390/jmse10060762

 

 

Guo, W., Wang, X., Liu, S., Kong, X., Wang, P., Xu, T. (2022). Long-Term petroleum hydrocarbons pollution after a coastal oil spill.Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 10. 1380. 10.3390/jmse10101380.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comment

This is a case study of an Indonesian industrial city, Balikpapan, analyzing the risk indices of hazardous materials. I appreciate the authors’ effort to summarize and classify the risks of hazmat emergencies by creating itemized indicators and a summary risk index. However, it is not clear whether the indicators and summary are the original creation, or cited from a reference, validated, and compared to any existing indicators. The discussion section lacks an important description of how you validate your results. There is no description of the limitation of this study. The conclusion also lacks implication for society.

 

The discussion section consisting of three subtitles (4.1, 4.2, second 4.2) describes mostly on the past oil spill disaster. The discussion section should be based on the findings of your results and discuss the validity and relevance of the findings. Subtitles 4.1 and the second 4.2 (GIS) are mostly about the past oil spill and lack the validation of the results. I already pointed out the ambiguity and reliability of the categorization of the risk assessments in the results. Subtitle 4.2 discusses the implications for local governments and related industries. It is OK to say that the water purification industry is less hazardous than other oil, gas, and mining industries, but, so what is the point of disaster risk reduction? Is there any inter-industrial cooperation? Is there any better waste water, or waste material processing improvement? How about the national management plan or regulation for these industries? How can you satisfy the sustainability of industries, citizens and the environment? Please discuss any of these aspects. I don't think the second subtitle 4.2 (GIS) is necessary for its current form. If you want to discuss the root cause of the oil spill, how can you prevent the ship anchor from damaging the undersea pipelines?

Discuss the limitation of this study. Suggestions to improve this type of study are appreciated.

 

Throughout the manuscript, follow the instructions for authors in citation methods. [number]

 

Throughout the manuscript, tables and figures, use "," instead of "." to express three digit separator, and use “. “ instead of ”,” to express the decimal point.

 

 

 

Having said that, several points need clarification.

#         Line 58: "hazardous event" is duplicated.

#         Line 61: This sentence seems to follow the sentence in Line 53. Consider relocating the paragraph in Lines 55-60.

#         Line 67: It is not a linear association between the "development & digitalization" and "rise of hazards.” Development & digitalization will also be the key to clean and safe innovations. Consider the expression.

#         Line 68: "hazards" or "hazardous events.”

#         Line 74: If it is the contribution of chemical manufacturing and petroleum field to the hazardous waste, express so.

#         Line 77: "a study has been done"?

#         Line 79: "has been disposed to sanitary landfills" may be correct.

#         Line 81: Even though it is impossible to identify the date of publication, indicate the date of access in the reference list and website URL.

#         Line 80: The amount of 60 million tons of waste in Indonesia far exceeds the total 1 million tons of hazardous waste in the Asia Pacific. Add explanation. Do you mean a total industrial waste of 60 million tons and not hazardous? Recycling or utilization of waste is a significant technological development and reducing the toxicity of waste. Waste water processing is critical if the non-toxic substance can be purified. Please clarify.

#         Line 89 and 91: "their" instead of "its.”

#         Line 91: Clarify what "this" means. The "inappropriate regulation", or "improper management"? The following expressions are ambiguous, too. Improper management will cause environmental leakage of hazardous materials and will cause pollution and public health problems, then will become emergencies or human-induced technical disasters (WHO Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management Framework 2019).

#         LIne 91: "related to" what?

#         Line 97: "detrimental impact" is correct. The following expressions do not make sense. Do you mean the detrimental impact on health, facilities, etc?

#         Line 105: Use "natural hazards" instead of "natural disasters" because this article may refer to combined types of hazards, i.e. natural and technological.

#         Line 105: Avoid starting a sentence with a number.

#         Line 107: "tsunami hazard" instead of "tsunami natural disaster.” It is not clear what the "initial detection tool" means. It might be part of an early warning system. Add some explanation and cite if any reference is available.

#         Line 108: "total amount" is better than "total number".

#         Line 109: It is not clear what (B3) means. Add explanation.

#         Line 111: "77,303, 8754 " can be an error. Do you mean 773 million tons of waste produced from 10 million tons of (B3) in Line 109?

#         Line 112: "of" instead of "orf.”

#         Line 124: "every" instead of "Every"

#         Line 135: "recommendation" instead of "recommend.”

#         Line 147: It is unclear why Table 1 is evaluated as "well-developed" or not. It seems that Table 1 is the original of this study.

#         Line 151: Cite a reference for MEF methodologies even if it is in the Indonesian language.

#         Line 152: This sentence is incomplete. Correct.

#         Line 163: It is not clear the relevance of this formula (risk = hazard x exposure) to the risk matrix in Fig. 1, which seems to be a multiplication of probability and impact. Add explanation.

#         Lines 170-180: These replicate Table 1 and sometimes the categories differ. For example, the frequency is differently classified by the type of operations (storage, shipment, and processing). I don't think these misleading replications are necessary.

#         Line 191: The scores for impact rating is different from that in Table 1, which categorizes Environment (Score =1), Humans/Animals, and Plants (Score =2) and Humans/Animals, Plants, and Environment (Score = 3). Which is correct?

#         Table 1: Show the reference for hazardous material categories 1 and 2. Add brief definition.

#         Fig. 1: The Y-axis label is unreadable. "Probability"? Even so, it is unclear how you calculated the probability from Table 1. There are nine categories in Table 1 including the "impact" itself (Item E). The range from Table 1 categories can be 3 to 27. What the "probability" means?

#         Fig. 1: It is not clear whether the X-axis of Fig. 1 corresponds to Item E (Impact on environmental objects), or not. Correct.

#         Line 209: It is unclear whether you have calculated the average risk rating by individual factory level or industrial group level. Clarify.

#         Line 209: "determine" instead of "determined.”

#         Line 215: Once you explained the acronym GIS previously, use GIS.

#         Line 216: Avoid the expression of result description in the methods section. GIS mapping may identify the individual factories that may harm the social value of the factories. Did you obtain agreements from the factories or informed consent from the FGD participants on the expression of GIS mapping?

#         Line 226 and 227: Use "," instead of "." to express three digit separator.

#         Line 227, 229, 230: Use "." instead of "," to express the decimal point.

#         Line 223: Cite the reference or indicate the data source for "inventory data in 2021". Central or local government, or any publicly available data? Correct the English expression.

#         Table 2: If you are intending to use metric tonnes, correct the expression of "tons" to "tonnes"  or "t" throughout the manuscript. Use "," instead of "." as three-digit separators.

#         Line 242: Use "natural hazard risk" instead of "natural disaster risk".

#         Line 243: Cite the source of IRBI as a URL if publicly available.

#         Line 246: Use "." instead of "," to express the decimal point. I don't think a simple sum (total 108.14) of the risks of various hazards can represent the area risk of the medium. Is there any categorizing rule in BNPB? If so, cite the reference.

#         Line 252: Remove "considerably".

#         Table 3, Title: Use "natural hazard" instead of  "natural disaster".

#         Table 3: Use "." instead of "," to express the decimal point.

#         Table 4: Use "," instead of "." to express the three-digits separator. Be careful to modify "," to "." for decimal points to the hydrazine, and other smaller amounts of materials.

#         Tabe 4: There are three items of "BBM" with different amounts. Add explanation. In the footnote of this table, spell out the acronyms used.

#         Line 267 and 271: It is really difficult to validate these expressions because the readers do not know what is "category 1" of hazardous materials. The logic is why many hazardous materials and their properties end in the medium risk of domination. Consider the expression.

#         Line 270: It would be appreciated if you could indicate the hazardous materials category 1 or 2 in Table 4 for the readers to grasp the danger of each substance.

#         Line 279: Spell out SOP at its first appearance.

#         Line 280: Do not capitalize the words for PPE unnecessarily.

#         Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6: Add English legend to explain which color is which.

#         Fig. 3: It is necessary to indicate where is the dense populated area and which is the coastline in this figure. "Barat" and "Timur" are the Bahasa indicating the Western and Eastern parts, but it is better to indicate where your intention is by the Western and Central parts of Balikpapan City in English. It is also highly appreciated if you could indicate the area of the past oil spill of 120 square kilometers.

#         Line 326: It would be appreciated if you could indicate the contaminated area in Fig. 3.

#         Line 335: English could be "medium risk level with dominant category 1 hazardous materials." if you mean. Consider the expression.

#         Line 347: Correct English in "with a typical hazmat types material is flammable.” Do you mean "with many of hazmat flammable"?

#         Line 348: Correct "are become.”

#         Line 350: When you say "hazmat occurs,” do you mean hazmat emergency? There is no verb in the latter part of this sentence and doesn't make sense. Correct.

#         Line 350: There are two "may"s in this sentence. Contaminated air, water, and land are the pollution. Clarify the difference.

#         Line 353: Use "natural hazards" instead of "natural disasters" as stated in Line 355.

#         LIne 361: Expressions "hazardous material" and "hazmat" randomly exist. Unify the expression. There is no definition of categories of hazmat in this manuscript. Please add.

#         Line 362: "considerably low" or "considered low.”

#         Line 363: "are needed to be", or "need to be"

#         Line 364: Remove "of"

#         Line 364: There is no verb in this sentence. "include" instead of "including".

#         Line 368: "amount" instead of "number.”

#         Line 371: "include" instead of "including.”

#         Line 376: Correct English as "root cause was", or "investigation has revealed the root cause as".

 

#         Line 400: "includes" instead of "including.” I would appreciate it if you could suggest possible other types of disaster risk reduction, such as material management, education of industrial workers and managers, local regulations and legislations, etc. 

Author Response

 

REVIEWER 2

 

This is a case study of an Indonesian industrial city, Balikpapan, analyzing the risk indices of hazardous materials. I appreciate the authors’ effort to summarize and classify the risks of hazmat emergencies by creating itemized indicators and a summary risk index. However, it is not clear whether the indicators and summary are the original creation, or cited from a reference, validated, and compared to any existing indicators. The discussion section lacks an important description of how you validate your results. There is no description of the limitation of this study. The conclusion also lacks implication for society.

The discussion section consisting of three subtitles (4.1, 4.2, second 4.2) describes mostly on the past oil spill disaster. The discussion section should be based on the findings of your results and discuss the validity and relevance of the findings. Subtitles 4.1 and the second 4.2 (GIS) are mostly about the past oil spill and lack the validation of the results. I already pointed out the ambiguity and reliability of the categorization of the risk assessments in the results. Subtitle 4.2 discusses the implications for local governments and related industries. It is OK to say that the water purification industry is less hazardous than other oil, gas, and mining industries, but, so what is the point of disaster risk reduction? Is there any inter-industrial cooperation? Is there any better waste water, or waste material processing improvement? How about the national management plan or regulation for these industries? How can you satisfy the sustainability of industries, citizens and the environment? Please discuss any of these aspects. I don't think the second subtitle 4.2 (GIS) is necessary for its current form. If you want to discuss the root cause of the oil spill, how can you prevent the ship anchor from damaging the undersea pipelines?

Discuss the limitation of this study. Suggestions to improve this type of study are appreciated. 

Several limitations from this study include: first, the study is only limited to the area of Balikpapan city; second, this study is limited to understanding the oil spills disaster only, while other types of disaster such as forest fire,or  population growth. Third, it only captured the related industries to disaster management programs, internal  learner’s needs and the collaboration within industries. Future research is needed to include local government participation as well industries in the area.

Throughout the manuscript, follow the instructions for authors in citation methods. [number]

Throughout the manuscript, tables and figures, use "," instead of "." to express three digit separator, and use “. “ instead of ”,” to express the decimal point

Response: We have revised the digit separator and decimal points.

Having said that, several points need clarification.

#         Line 58: "hazardous event" is duplicated.

Response: We have removed the other one.

#         Line 61: This sentence seems to follow the sentence in Line 53. Consider relocating the paragraph in Lines 55-60.

Response: It has already updated according to your advice

#         Line 67: It is not a linear association between the "development & digitalization" and "rise of hazards.” Development & digitalization will also be the key to clean and safe innovations. Consider the expression. 

Response: We revised accordingly

#         Line 68: "hazards" or "hazardous events.”

Response: We have revised the sentence.

#         Line 74: If it is the contribution of chemical manufacturing and petroleum field to the hazardous waste, express so. 

Response: we have revised the sentence

#         Line 77: "a study has been done"?

Response: We have revised the sentence

#         Line 79: "has been disposed to sanitary landfills" may be correct.

Response: We have revised the sentence.

#         Line 81: Even though it is impossible to identify the date of publication, indicate the date of access in the reference list and website URL.

Response: it has been revised accordingly

#         Line 80: The amount of 60 million tons of waste in Indonesia far exceeds the total 1 million tons of hazardous waste in the Asia Pacific. Add explanation. Do you mean a total industrial waste of 60 million tons and not hazardous? Recycling or utilization of waste is a significant technological development and reducing the toxicity of waste. Waste water processing is critical if the non-toxic substance can be purified. Please clarify.

Response: We have revised the words.

#         Line 89 and 91: "their" instead of "its.”

Response: We have revised the words.

#         Line 91: Clarify what "this" means. The "inappropriate regulation", or "improper management"? The following expressions are ambiguous, too. Improper management will cause environmental leakage of hazardous materials and will cause pollution and public health problems, then will become emergencies or human-induced technical disasters (WHO Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management Framework 2019). 

Response : Improper hazardous materials management will cause environmental leakage of hazardous materials and will cause pollution and public health problems, then will become emergencies or human-induced technical disasters (WHO Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management Framework 2019).

#         LIne 91: "related to" what?

Response : Improper management of hazardous materials and/or its waste has the potential to trigger an emergency condition related to industrial disaster.

#         Line 97: "detrimental impact" is correct. The following expressions do not make sense. Do you mean the detrimental impact on health, facilities, etc?

Response : It has been reported that disaster occurred in industry due to failure of its system has detrimental impacts to public health causing fatalities, facilities, infrastructure and community surrounding company areas [(Arad et al., 2019; Krausmann et al., 2017)].

 

#         Line 105: Use "natural hazards" instead of "natural disasters" because this article may refer to combined types of hazards, i.e. natural and technological.

Response : Natural hazards that occurred in Balikpapan City included floods and landslides

#         Line 105: Avoid starting a sentence with a number.

Response: We have revised the sentences.

#         Line 107: "tsunami hazard" instead of "tsunami natural disaster.” It is not clear what the "initial detection tool" means. It might be part of an early warning system. Add some explanation and cite if any reference is available.

Response : The initial detection tool for an early warning system such as bouy for the new tsunami natural hazard will be planned for the installation of the Balikpapan - West Sulawesi segment. (https://indonesia.go.id/kategori/budaya/2543/buoy-pendeteksi-tsunami-super-cepat-buatan-indonesia)

#         Line 108: "total amount" is better than "total number".

Response: We have revised the sentence.

#         Line 109: It is not clear what (B3) means. Add explanation.

Response: We have removed the “B3” word.

#         Line 111: "77,303, 8754 " can be an error. Do you mean 773 million tons of waste produced from 10 million tons of (B3) in Line 109?

Respinse: Flammable waste is 10 million tons, where the total is 77 million tons

#         Line 112: "of" instead of "orf.”

Response: We have revised the word.

#         Line 124: "every" instead of "Every"

Response: We have revised the word.

#         Line 135: "recommendation" instead of "recommend.”

Response: We have revised the word.

#         Line 147: It is unclear why Table 1 is evaluated as "well-developed" or not. It seems that Table 1 is the original of this study. 

Response: We have explained the source of the criteria.

#         Line 151: Cite a reference for MEF methodologies even if it is in the Indonesian language.

Response: We have revised the words.

#         Line 152: This sentence is incomplete. Correct.

Response: We have revised the words.

 

#         Line 163: It is not clear the relevance of this formula (risk = hazard x exposure) to the risk matrix in Fig. 1, which seems to be a multiplication of probability and impact. Add explanation.

Response : The relevance of the formula risk = hazard x exposure is the calculation of risk level, and it can also be used as a risk matrix in Fig. 1, which are a multiplication of probability and impact derived from hazards and exposure multiplications.

The scoring formula for the assessment of hazardous material was as follows:

 

RISK score is calculated based on  Multiplication results from:

[HAZARDS Level Sum] x  [EXPOSURE Level Sum]

HAZARD Level: Sum of Scoring [Hazmat Classification + Hazards characteristics + Frequencies of used/shipment/processing + Impact to environmental objects]

EXPOSURE Level: Sum of Scoring [Exposure to environmental media + Exposure duration]

 

                  Risk Level calculation is shown in Table 1 for more detailed information.

 

Table 1. Risk Score Calculation

(See Excel File Risk Calculation)

 

No.	Industry sectors			Hazardous Materials Activities
		Industry Subsectors (Oil & Gas, Energy Power, Utility, etc)	Quantity (tonnes)
Fill in with Number	Describe the industry sectors such as Oil & gas, Mining, Water Treatment, etc	Describe Industry Subsectors such as Oil & Gas, Energy Power, Utility, etc	Describe the quantity in tonnes	Describe hazardous materials activities such as storage, shipment, process, usage, distribution

 

 

Hazards Potential Level

HAZARDS LEVEL

Hazmat  Classification

Hazards Characteristics

Frequencies (used/shipment/ processing)

Impact to environmental objects

Types of Hazardous Materials

Hazards Characteristics / Hazards Classification

Medium

High

Low

Medium

High

Rare

Medium

Frequent

Low

Medium

High

Describe types of hazardous materials such as gasoline, crude oil, coal, chemicals, LPG, biodiesel, etc

Describe characteristics of hazardous materials such as flammables, exposives, infectious, corrosive. For hazards classification describe whether the hazmat is classified as category 1 (acute category 1 is for hazardous materials that have an acute (fast or sudden) and direct impact on humans, as well as a negative impact on the environment. Category 2 is for a hazardous material that has a non-acute effect (delay) and has an indirect impact on humans and the environment. This category has toxicity that tends to be sub-chronic or chronic (long-term). Category 1 can be classified as HIGH hazards level, while Category 2 classified as MEDIUM hazards level

Category 2 classified as MEDIUM hazards level

Category 1  classified as HIGH hazards level

Corrosive, irritant, and environmental hazards

Toxic

Reactive, flammable, and explosive

Storage Infrequent: < 7 times /month Shipment Infrequent: < 4 times /year Processing Infrequent: < 3 times /year

Storage: Medium: 7 - 14 times /month Shipment: Medium: 4 - 12 times /year Processing: Medium: 3 - 9 times /year

Storage: Frequent: > 15 - 30 times /month Shipment: Frequent: > 12 times /year Processing: Frequent: > 9 times /year

Impact to the environment

Impact to people/animals, and plants

Impact to people/animals, plants, and environment

 

 

EXPOSURE LEVEL						Risk Score	Level of Risk	Recommendation of Hazards & Exposure Control
Exposure  to environmental media (water, air, land)			Exposure duration
Low	Medium	High	Low	Medium	High
Exposure to 1 (one) of environmental media	Exposure to 2 (two) of environmental media	Exposure to 3 (three) of environmental media	< 1 (one) week	1 (one) week - 1 (one) month	> 1 (one) month	Risk Score is calculated based on Multiplication results from HAZARDS Level Sum [Hazmat classification + x EXPOSURE Level Sum]	Describe the level of risk : LOW: < 29; MEDIUM: 30-59; HIGH: >60	Describe how the recommendation for hazards and exposure control such as hazardous materials handling, emergency of hazardous materials such as oil and chemical spills, fire and explosions, prevention of hazardous materials incidents, etc

 

#         Lines 170-180: These replicate Table 1 and sometimes the categories differ. For example, the frequency is differently classified by the type of operations (storage, shipment, and processing). I don't think these misleading replications are necessary.

Response : It has been amended in the risk score calculation Table 1..

#         Line 191: The scores for impact rating is different from that in Table 1, which categorizes Environment (Score =1), Humans/Animals, and Plants (Score =2) and Humans/Animals, Plants, and Environment (Score = 3). Which is correct?

Response : We have revised the explanation and align both explanation in Table 1 and line 191:

• Impact to environmental objects rating: Impact to the environment (Score = 1), Impact to the people/animals and plants (Score = 2), Impact to people/animals, plants, and environment (Score = 3).

 

#         Table 1: Show the reference for hazardous material categories 1 and 2. Add brief definition. .

Response : it has been amended into the explanation for categories 1 and 2 based on Indonesian Regulation (Government regulation No. 22/2021):

According to Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia No. 22/2021, category 1 is for hazardous materials that have an acute (fast or sudden) and direct impact on humans, as well as a negative impact on the environment. Meanwhile category 2 is for a hazardous material that has a non-acute effect (delay) and has an indirect impact on humans and the environment. This category has toxicity that tends to be sub-chronic or chronic (long-term);

 

#         Fig. 1: The Y-axis label is unreadable. "Probability"? Even so, it is unclear how you calculated the probability from Table 1. There are nine categories in Table 1 including the "impact" itself (Item E). The range from Table 1 categories can be 3 to 27. What the "probability" means?

Response: The X & Y axis has been revised to Hazards & Exposure (Figure 4).

#         Fig. 1: It is not clear whether the X-axis of Fig. 1 corresponds to Item E (Impact on environmental objects), or not. Correct

Response: The X & Y axis has been revised to Hazards & Exposure.

#         Line 209: It is unclear whether you have calculated the average risk rating by individual factory level or industrial group level. Clarify.

Response: The X & Y axis has been revised to Hazards & Exposure.

The average risk rating is calculated based on the average total risk level from the summation of all companies.

#         Line 209: "determine" instead of "determined.”

Response: We have revised the sentences.

#         Line 215: Once you explained the acronym GIS previously, use GIS. 

Response: We have revised the sentences.

#         Line 216: Avoid the expression of result description in the methods section. GIS mapping may identify the individual factories that may harm the social value of the factories. Did you obtain agreements from the factories or informed consent from the FGD participants on the expression of GIS mapping?

Response: Yes we did it

#         Line 226 and 227: Use "," instead of "." to express three digit separator.

Response: We have revised the digit separator.

#         Line 227, 229, 230: Use "." instead of "," to express the decimal point.

Response: We have revised the decimal points.

#         Line 223: Cite the reference or indicate the data source for "inventory data in 2021". Central or local government, or any publicly available data? Correct the English expression.

Response: We have revised the sentences.

#         Table 2: If you are intending to use metric tonnes, correct the expression of "tons" to "tonnes"  or "t" throughout the manuscript. Use "," instead of "." as three-digit separators.

Response: We have revised the word and the digit separators.

#         Line 242: Use "natural hazard risk" instead of "natural disaster risk". 

Response: We have revised the sentences.

#         Line 243: Cite the source of IRBI as a URL if publicly available.

Response: We have added the source in references.

#         Line 246: Use "." instead of "," to express the decimal point. I don't think a simple sum (total 108.14) of the risks of various hazards can represent the area risk of the medium. Is there any categorizing rule in BNPB? If so, cite the reference.

#         Line 252: Remove "considerably".

Response: We have removed the word.

#         Table 3, Title: Use "natural hazard" instead of  "natural disaster". 

Response: We have revised the sentence.

#         Table 3: Use "." instead of "," to express the decimal point.

Response: We have revised the decimal point.

#         Table 4: Use "," instead of "." to express the three-digits separator. Be careful to modify "," to "." for decimal points to the hydrazine, and other smaller amounts of materials. 

Response: We have revised the digit separator.

#         Tabe 4: There are three items of "BBM" with different amounts. Add explanation. In the footnote of this table, spell out the acronyms used. 

#         Line 267 and 271: It is really difficult to validate these expressions because the readers do not know what is "category 1" of hazardous materials. The logic is why many hazardous materials and their properties end in the medium risk of domination. Consider the expression.

Response: We have explained in the method.

#         Line 270: It would be appreciated if you could indicate the hazardous materials category 1 or 2 in Table 4 for the readers to grasp the danger of each substance.

Response: We have added the hazards class in a new column.

#         Line 279: Spell out SOP at its first appearance.

Response: We have added the spell out of SOP.

#         Line 280: Do not capitalize the words for PPE unnecessarily. 

Response: We have revised the words.

#         Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6: Add English legend to explain which color is which.

Response: We have added the english legend.

#         Fig. 3: It is necessary to indicate where is the dense populated area and which is the coastline in this figure. "Barat" and "Timur" are the Bahasa indicating the Western and Eastern parts, but it is better to indicate where your intention is by the Western and Central parts of Balikpapan City in English. It is also highly appreciated if you could indicate the area of the past oil spill of 120 square kilometers.

Response: The Figure 3 has been and corrected to english language.

The 120 square kilometers have been amended in Fig. 3b.

Figure 3b. Balikpapan’s Oil Spill 2018.

Source: LAPAN - http://rsgs.lapan.go.id/LAPAN/index.php/subblog/read/2018/671/Tumpahan-minyak-di-Balikpapan/berita, Public domain:, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68119778

#         Line 326: It would be appreciated if you could indicate the contaminated area in Fig. 3. Response : It has been amended in Figure 3 and provide its sources

#         Line 335: English could be "medium risk level with dominant category 1 hazardous materials." if you mean. Consider the expression.

#         Line 347: Correct English in "with a typical hazmat types material is flammable.” Do you mean "with many of hazmat flammable"?

#         Line 348: Correct "are become.”

Response: We have revised accordingly

#         Line 350: When you say "hazmat occurs,” do you mean hazmat emergency? There is no verb in the latter part of this sentence and doesn't make sense. Correct.

Response: We have revised accordingly

#         Line 350: There are two "may"s in this sentence. Contaminated air, water, and land are the pollution. Clarify the difference.

Response: We have revised accordingly

#         Line 353: Use "natural hazards" instead of "natural disasters" as stated in Line 355.

Response: We have revised the sentences.

#         LIne 361: Expressions "hazardous material" and "hazmat" randomly exist. Unify the expression. There is no definition of categories of hazmat in this manuscript. Please add.

Response: We have revised accordingly

#         Line 362: "considerably low" or "considered low.”

Response: We have revised the sentence.

#         Line 363: "are needed to be", or "need to be"

Response: We have revised the sentence.

#         Line 364: Remove "of"

Response: We have revised the sentence.

#         Line 364: There is no verb in this sentence. "include" instead of "including".

Response: We have revised the word.

#         Line 368: "amount" instead of "number.”

Response: We have revised the word.

#         Line 371: "include" instead of "including.”

Response: We have revised the word.

#         Line 376: Correct English as "root cause was", or "investigation has revealed the root cause as". Ading & Dini

Response: We have revised the sentence.

#         Line 400: "includes" instead of "including.” I would appreciate it if you could suggest possible other types of disaster risk reduction, such as material management, education of industrial workers and managers, local regulations and legislations, etc. 

Response: We have revised accordingly

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors conducted a disaster risk assessment of hazardous materials in Balikpapan. Although I think the field of study is important, I would like to state that the study has severe deficiencies.

1.      References in lines 430, 445, and 483 are not included in the text. It should be checked.

2.      The literature of the study is very lacking. Some sources of data are not specified. Example: Table 3.

3.      What are the similar studies in the literature related to the study? It should be explained comparatively.

4.      The contribution and importance of the study to the literature should be emphasized.

5.      Information about the method theory used should be presented. Why were these methods chosen instead of other more effective methods in the literature?

6.      In the study, general information about Balikpapan was presented, but little information was given about the application stages and details.

7.      Figure 2 and Table 4 have no explanation in the text. Especially while Table 4 is important, the lack of explanation text is a big shortcoming.

8.      Figure 3-Figure 7 used score explanations should be in English.

9.      Figure 1 should be given again as one piece.

Author Response

The authors conducted a disaster risk assessment of hazardous materials in Balikpapan. Although I think the field of study is important, I would like to state that the study has severe deficiencies.

1. References in lines 430, 445, and 483 are not included in the text. It should be checked.

Response: Thank you for feedback, we have already updated.

2. The literature of the study is very lacking. Some sources of data are not specified. Example: Table 3.

Response: We have already updated

3. What are the similar studies in the literature related to the study? It should be explained comparatively.

Response: We updated the manuscript

4. The contribution and importance of the study to the literature should be emphasized.

Response: We updated the manuscript

5. Information about the method theory used should be presented. Why were these methods chosen instead of other more effective methods in the literature?

Response: we already updated

6. In the study, general information about Balikpapan was presented, but little information was given about the application stages and details.

Response: We improve the section

7. Figure 2 and Table 4 have no explanation in the text. Especially while Table 4 is important, the lack of explanation text is a big shortcoming.

Response: We already updated

8. Figure 3-Figure 7 used score explanations should be in English.

Response: We already updated

9. Figure 1 should be given again as one piece.

Response: We already updated

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the revised version is improved, and can be accepted for publication.  It addresses most of the comments in the previous version. 

Author Response

Thank you for great feedback and determinations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revision. However, adding new Tables and Figures merely created confusion about the numbering of Tables and Figures. The abstract is not attractive, and challenging to see a clear notion and the merit of the proposed (or cited) risk evaluation method. The purpose of this study is not clear yet.

Tables are difficult to interpret.

The GIS figures are also confusing. It seems like a contour, but there is no description of how you created the contour. As a result, the figure tells us that the mountainous area in the north end has a higher risk than the area close to the industries. The amount of hazmat is also confusing.

The conclusion is not straightforward. Do not repeat the description of the past oil spill. If the authors conclude that the government and industries should be prepared regardless of the risk assessment in any way, what the risk assessment is for?

#          Line 32: "a well-developed checklist" should be modified to "an originally organized checklist" or "locally adjusted checklist," for example, because the user will evaluate the value.

#          Three sentences from Line 33: Edit English so that readers can grasp the summary of the results. For example, "The major sectors contributing to the risks are mining, energy, oil, and gas industries with medium risk (average risk score 33), while one clean water industry had low risk (risk score 24) using the checklist and risk matrix." Make the abstract attractive.

#          Line 157, 158, and 162: There is no necessity to translate metric units to feet.

#          Line 186: Clarify the originality of the methods and use "structured (or systematic)" instead of "well-developed".

#          Line 188: The risk matrix seems now to be Fig. 4. Fig. 1 left side is too small to read, and I don't understand the necessity of Fig. 1.

#          Figure 2: According to this figure, risk score 24 of the clean water industry cannot be "low (<20)." The range's definition differs from that in Fig. 4. Correct.

#          Line 376: "personal protective equipment (PPE)" is correct.

#          Line 387: The figure number is different because of additional figures. Fig. 3 is no longer Fig. 3 anymore.

 

#          Line 406 and 411: The creation method of "Fig. 4" and "Fig. 5" is unclear. It seems to be a contour, but there is no description in the Method section. Did you consider the height of the area? Strangely, the north end of Balikpapan Barat has more tonnes of hazardous material and higher risk though there is no causing industries in the mountainous area as shown in "Fig. 3" and "new Fig. 3b”

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thank you for the revision. However, adding new Tables and Figures merely created confusion about the numbering of Tables and Figures. The abstract is not attractive, and challenging to see a clear notion and the merit of the proposed (or cited) risk evaluation method. The purpose of this study is not clear yet. –

Response: Figures and table have been described accordingly.

The GIS figures are also confusing. It seems like a contour, but there is no description of how you created the contour. As a result, the figure tells us that the mountainous area in the north end has a higher risk than the area close to the industries. The amount of hazmat is also confusing. -

Response: it has been updated according to your feedback.

 

The B3 tonnage and its risk were estimated along Balikpapan City. The estimation was based on the interpolation method. This method resulted in a contour-like map. Each contoured color represents the amount of B3 tonnage and its risk. The interpolation was made using QGIS version 2.1.6

The conclusion is not straightforward. Do not repeat the description of the past oil spill. If the authors conclude that the government and industries should be prepared regardless of the risk assessment in any way, what the risk assessment is for? 

 

Response: it has been updated accordingly

 

#          Line 32: "a well-developed checklist" should be modified to "an originally organized checklist" or "locally adjusted checklist," for example, because the user will evaluate the value. -

 

Response: We have modified "a well-developed checklist" to "an originally organized checklist"

 

#          Three sentences from Line 33: Edit English so that readers can grasp the summary of the results. For example, "The major sectors contributing to the risks are mining, energy, oil, and gas industries with medium risk (average risk score 33), while one clean water industry had low risk (risk score 24) using the checklist and risk matrix." Make the abstract attractive.

 

Response: It has been revised accordingly

 

#          Line 157, 158, and 162: There is no necessity to translate metric units to feet.

 

Response: We have removed the feet metrics units.

 

#          Line 186: Clarify the originality of the methods and use "structured (or systematic)" instead of "well-developed".

 

Response: We have modified "well-developed" to "systematic".

 

#          Line 188: The risk matrix seems now to be Fig. 4. Fig. 1 left side is too small to read, and I don't understand the necessity of Fig. 1.

Response: We have revised the Figure number.

 

#          Figure 2: According to this figure, risk score 24 of the clean water industry cannot be "low (<20)." The range's definition differs from that in Fig. 4. Correct.

 

Response: it has been revised accordingly

 

#          Line 376: "personal protective equipment (PPE)" is correct.

Response: We have revised the sentence.

 

#          Line 387: The figure number is different because of additional figures. Fig. 3 is no longer Fig. 3 anymore.

Response: We have revised the Figure number.

 

 

#          Line 406 and 411: The creation method of "Fig. 4" and "Fig. 5" is unclear. It seems to be a contour, but there is no description in the Method section. Did you consider the height of the area? Strangely, the north end of Balikpapan Barat has more tonnes of hazardous material and higher risk though there is no causing industries in the mountainous area as shown in "Fig. 3" and "new Fig. 3b” 

 

The figure 4 and 5 is not  a elevation countor map and do not related with the height or elevation. More tonnes of hazardous materials in the north end were related to the other sectors than industrial sectors. Other potential sectors can be mining, logging, and plantation sectors.

 

Response: it has been revised accordingly

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article can be accepted as such.

Author Response

Thank you for great feedback and determinations.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revision.