DSS233: Incident Update - Court Cases in 2021 Coal Dust Explosion in Baltimore, Maryland

In today’s episode of the Dust Safety Science podcast, we’re presenting an instant update on the 2021 coal dust explosion in Baltimore, Maryland as part of our Road to Zero mission to eliminate fatalities from dust explosions worldwide by 2038. These shorter episodes aim to highlight and contribute to our mission by recording real-time lessons learned from dust fires and explosions.

While valuable reports from organizations like the US Chemical Safety Board and local government agencies exist, they often take years to be published and reach the audience. Our instant database fills this gap, providing up-to-date information on recent incidents to generate relevant lessons for industries handling combustible dust. By focusing on what’s happening today, we aim to support those working in these industries and provide insights that matter in the present.

The incident database serves as a comprehensive repository for documenting dust explosions and combustible dust fires worldwide, ensuring real-time updates on their current status. Our dedicated team conducts thorough incident research, including reaching out to fire marshals, consulting OSHA guidelines, searching legal databases, and utilizing Freedom of Information Act requests to gather the latest information available on these incidents. Our aim is to share this valuable knowledge with the community, enabling collective learning and prevention of losses caused by dust explosion incidents.

We’ve done a number of different episodes on instant updates:

In upcoming episodes, we will delve deeper into the core consequences arising from dust explosions, an aspect often overlooked by companies regarding the significant impact such events can have on their operations. Beyond the immediate effects on employees, community, and production downtime, there are additional factors like equipment replacement, the challenge of resuming operations, and the overall morale of those involved. Notably, the potential for lawsuits associated with these incidents is gaining prominence, becoming larger, more difficult to defend, and increasingly costly. This growing awareness of the legal implications is expected to play a crucial role in emphasizing the importance of combustible dust safety, motivating the community to adopt and promote safe best practices, and collaborate in preventing such incidents from occurring.

We have previously discussed the Baltimore coal dust explosion on two separate podcast episodes, specifically in Episodes #210 and #215. In Episode #210, we provided an initial update on the explosion that occurred on December 30th, 2021, in Baltimore, Maryland. The incident took place at a facility responsible for handling coal, which was received via both rail and ship. News reports indicated that the explosions occurred shortly after 11:30 a.m. as coal was being transferred to the conveyor system.

After careful investigation, we managed to locate several videos capturing the incident, leading us to conclude that it was likely a dust explosion. However, prior to discovering these videos, we couldn’t confirm with absolute certainty whether it was a coal dust explosion or a methane gas explosion. In that particular episode, we examined the OSHA citations associated with the incident, which amounted to $121,000 against the involved company. These citations encompassed various violations, such as the absence of respirators and emergency protective equipment, inadequate documentation and design for hazardous and classified locations, improper electrical equipment including control panels and overhead lighting in hazardous areas, and a failure to conduct pre-entry testing to identify potential hazardous areas for employees.

Initially, there was uncertainty surrounding the cause and sequence of events leading to the explosion discussed in episode 215. The OSHA citations did not provide specific details on the ignition or operational sequence. However, in a subsequent update, community members shared local news reports and videos depicting the incident.

These videos revealed that the explosion took place in a long conveyor system connected to transfer towers, potentially linked to the North Reclaim tunnel and the Northwest Escape tunnel. The footage showed a significant fireball emanating from one end of the transfer towers, with smoke and dust being ejected upstream and downstream in the conveyor system. These visual observations strongly indicated a coal dust explosion hazard. Further analysis of the citations and lawsuits suggested that a combination of methane gas and coal dust explosions occurred in the reclaim tunnel, generating a pressure wave that propagated the explosion throughout the conveyor system, causing widespread damage.

We discussed the impact of the explosion on neighboring communities, where smoke and debris affected a concentrated area of 12 blocks in the Curtis Bay neighborhood adjacent to the site. We also highlighted that the Maryland Department of Environment imposed fines totaling $125,000, which were eventually settled for $15,000 in penalties, with $100,000 allocated to the South Baltimore Community Land Trust from those fines.

Furthermore, we mentioned a news report released on October 19th, 2022, which stated that a group of Baltimore residents had initiated a class-action lawsuit against the company. The lawsuit sought a total of $5 million in damages for issues like coal dust, debris, and property damage, including broken windows, stemming from the explosion. The suit alleged negligence on the part of the company due to inadequate staffing and failure to comply with safety requirements.

Regarding the class-action lawsuit filed against the involved company, our team has obtained a summary of the current status of the court case. It is important to note that this is an ongoing case, and the information we present is solely based on available data.

The plaintiffs, representing themselves and others in similar situations, alleged negligence, trespass, nuisance, and strict liability under Maryland law. Their demands include an injunction for adequate staffing and training at Curtis Bay, the establishment of a fund for medical monitoring and property damages, among other requests. The motion to dismiss made by the company has been denied, as stated in the summarized ruling.

This document provides background information and offers a succinct summary of the case, which is significant as it is the first such summary we have found. According to the provided information, the case revolves around an explosion that took place in the Northern Reclaim Tunnel, a 770-foot concrete tunnel positioned beneath the transfer yard. This tunnel is equipped with coal feeders, conveyors, and related equipment. The plaintiffs assert that a combination of methane and coal dust had accumulated in the North Reclaim Tunnel between feeder seven and 17, resulting in a localized flammable atmosphere. The poor ventilation in the tunnel prevented the dissipation of the flammable gases, exacerbating the situation.

On December 30th, 2021, these gases ignited, creating a pressure wave that gathered coal dust as it propagated through the tunnel. This led to a significant explosion, described as “massive,” which generated a plume erupting from the Northern Escape tunnel and the surface entrance. Consequently, pollutants were dispersed into the air. We have included videos related to the incident in the show notes of this podcast episode, as well as in previous episodes. It is important to note that the Curtis Bay facility is situated in close proximity to a residential neighborhood where the plaintiffs and other potential class members reside. As stated in the complaint, the plaintiffs observed their homes being covered in coal dust following the explosion. They further allege that the dust and contamination released during the incident settled on the ground, necessitating additional cleanup measures to ensure the safety of the residents.

The plaintiffs additionally assert that the explosion discharged hazardous and potentially carcinogenic substances, such as lead, arsenic, silica, and particulate matter. They claim that the proposed class members were exposed to these substances through inhalation, significantly increasing their risk of developing lung diseases, including cancer, lead poisoning, coalworker’s pneumoconiosis, and other severe ailments.

Four Complaints Reviewed

We will now provide an overview of the four complaints stated in the case.

Negligence

The first is negligence, where the plaintiffs argue that the explosion at Curtis Bay was a result of the company’s negligent staffing, operation, and maintenance practices at the facility. They contend that the company had a responsibility to operate, supervise, and maintain the facility with due care under the given circumstances. The plaintiffs further assert that this negligence caused the explosion, leading to the release of coal dust and contaminants into the community, resulting in three forms of harm: personal injury due to inhalation of contaminants, damage to residential properties covered by coal dust and contaminants, and damage to personal belongings.

Trespass

To summarize the trespass complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the explosion resulted in the company’s trespass by dispersing toxic coal dust onto their properties. They claim that the release of poisonous and carcinogenic chemicals occurred through airborne particles onto the properties of the plaintiffs and other potential class members.

Nuisance

Regarding the nuisance charge, the plaintiffs argue that the release of chemicals from the Curtis Bay facility significantly interfered with their ability to utilize and enjoy their properties. They assert that the company’s operation of the facility caused a nuisance due to the discharge of dangerous and carcinogenic chemicals, as well as unpleasant odors, into the surrounding community and the area where the potential class members reside.

Strict Liability

The fourth and final count, which was denied in the motion to dismiss, involves strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities. In this regard, the legal text references the principle adopted by Maryland courts from the Restatement of Torts 519. This principle states that an individual engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity is liable for harm caused to another person, land, or property resulting from the activity, even if they have taken the utmost care to prevent such harm.

The document contains several notes highlighting the various factors at play. One notable point is that the plaintiffs argue that the collection and handling of flammable coal dust in close proximity to the residential neighborhood meets the criteria of an abnormally dangerous activity according to Maryland law.

Conclusion

We will continue to provide updates as we gather and receive additional information regarding the explosion. We have already initiated a Freedom of Information Act request and obtained the OSHA citation at this stage. As the court case progresses and more information becomes available, we will ensure to share it on the podcast and include it in the incident database, thereby keeping the incident well-documented and up to date.

If you have questions about the contents of this or any other podcast episode, you can go to our ‘Questions from the Community’ page and submit a text message or video recording. We will then bring someone on to answer these questions in a future episode.