Investigation of Chlorine Gas Release

A train derailment caused a release of chlorine gas from a tank car. The location was fairly remote, but small towns in the vicinity were notified to evacuate. Volunteer and part-time responders were asked to go door to door. In most cases, respiratory protective equipment was insufficient or non-existent. Some responders and residents were exposed. A major highway passed through the release area and some people traveling in cars were also exposed. Hundreds of people were exposed in varying degrees to chlorine gas. Many sought emergency care in the local hospital. Many people continued to complain of respiratory symptoms months after the release. The CDC's ASTDR investigated the health consequences from the release, doing testing and health histories of exposed people. Some people sought medical care for respiratory and other symptoms from their own health care providers. Adverse respiratory health effects were documented or indicated in many people that were exposed. Unexpectedly, neurological symptoms and complaints were also common in a significant number of cases. The incident came under review of EPA Ombudsman.

This consultant was asked to serve as expert witness in litigation for dozens of plaintiffs with injuries due to chlorine gas exposure. Some cases already had well documented respiratory testing indicating aggravation of asthma and new cases of reactive airways dysfunction. Some people sought neurological diagnosis and subsequent care for symptoms and complaints. Some people sought further care and studies at a major medical center.

This consultant reviewed volumes of medical records from about 80 cases. This consultant identified those cases that had documented respiratory injury consistent with the chlorine gas exposure. Some people had neurological testing that identified abnormalities temporally consistent with the same exposure. This consultant obtained published literature to support individual findings, including the ATSDR report and data. The ATSDR studies also found significant neurological symptomology. This consultant provided a general opinion of findings to EPA ombudsman.

This consultant wrote reports for each individual case that pursued personal injury litigation. Moreover, this consultant gave several depositions and testimony in court. Cases were resolved with settlements or court awards.

This accident provided a model for study of what to expect in response to terrorist attack with chlorine gas. Chlorine is readily available. What was learned from this case was what kinds of respiratory equipment would be needed by first responders, what were emergency care demands on the hospital to treat exposures, what were needs for long-term health care, and what follow up diagnostic investigations were needed for the exposed public. This event was very unfortunate, but provided opportunity for lessons to be learned that can be applied to homeland security and response to terrorist action.

To see the resume of the expert associated with this case study, see the link below.