In a May 18 letter to BNSF Railway President Matt Rose, The Fertilizer Institute joined The Chlorine Institute (CI) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) in opposing BNSF’s recently announced decision to impose new tariffs on certain anhydrous ammonia and chlorine rail shipments (GM April 16, p. 13).
The organizations said several member companies had received letters from BNSF informing them of a policy change that would impose tariffs on anhydrous and chlorine shipments in cars that meet current federal standards but do not comply with a controversial list of tank car specifications endorsed by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) for new car construction after Jan. 1, 2008.
“ACC, CI and TFI consider this action to be unreasonable,” the letter said. “Given the ongoing federal rulemaking on a new tank car standard, BNSF’s move to a new car standard is wholly unwarranted.” The organizations said they supported federal tank car rulemaking based on “scientifically sound,” performance-based standards, and noted that they are currently conducting additional research in conjunction with the Department of Transportation.
BNSF informed customers in April that it would dramatically increase its demurrage and private car storage policy for TIH shipments beginning May 1. The move came in response to new supplemental security actions issued by the Transportation Security Administration regarding the rail transportation of Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) commodities such as anhydrous ammonia and chlorine (GM Feb. 5, p. 1).
“Our members who ship toxic inhalation hazards like anhydrous ammonia and chlorine are committed to working through that rulemaking process to materially improve rail safety by adopting a new performance specification,” the TFI letter said. “In the meantime, even if there were consensus that the disputed AAR construction specification was the best way to improve safety performance, shippers could not purchase the cars by the BNSF tariff implementation date due to backlogs at tank car manufacturing facilities.”
The letter further charges that BNSF’s policy would force shippers to pay the higher rate “even in light of the impossibility of complying with the disputed AAR standard.” Claiming the policy would have “no effect on safety,” the organizations urged BNSF “to reverse this notice and instead to participate in the ongoing government and industry efforts at developing new car specifications based on performance requirements currently being defined.” The letter asks for a response by June 8.