EnglishNAVIGATING ALTERNATIVE FUEL OPTIONS: AN INTERVIEW WITH ITOPF
Published: 10 July 2025
Andrew Le Masurier, ITOPF Senior Technical Adviser
As the shipping industry transitions to low- and zero-carbon fuels, the operational and environmental challenges associated with these alternatives are becoming more apparent. To better understand the spill response considerations for alternative marine fuels, we sat down with the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation ITOPF, a leading authority in marine pollution response and industry preparedness, to discuss spill behaviour, associated risks and response strategies of these new alternative fuels to assist shipowners as they navigate this transition.
Q | There seems to be many alternative fuel options for Shipowners to choose from, which fuels are ITOPF focusing on?
Shipowners now have a very large range of different fuel options to choose from, from using biofuels as a drop-in alternative to HFO, retrofitting an existing vessel to run on an alternative fuel or ordering a vessel with a dual-fuel system that can run on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), methanol or ammonia alongside conventional fuels.
ITOPF is focusing on the fuels that appear, currently, to be the most commercially viable, which include biofuels, LNG, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), methanol, ammonia, lithium-ion batteries and to a certain extent hydrogen. We are also following the development of small modular nuclear reactors, which have increasingly cropped up in discussions on maritime decarbonisation in recent years.
We, at ITOPF, have been providing technical advice to our Members and Associates in the event of a spill, either from bunkers or cargo for the last 55 years. As a multi-fuel future is widely predicted, at least for now, we ensure that our stakeholders’ preparedness and awareness of the challenges of a spill encompasses all the potential fuel types, rather than focusing solely on one fuel type. For this reason, ITOPF has prepared a series of documents on the alternative fuel types for Clubs, shipowners and government organisations. The aim of these reports is to provide a summary of the fuels’ fate, behaviour, risks and possible damages and liabilities relating to spills of the substances.
Q | What considerations should shipowners consider when introducing alternative fuels onboard? What are the main concerns in relation to crew safety, equipment availability on board and future viability of these fuels?
The main concern currently felt within both the shipping and response industry is the hazardous nature of these alternative fuels. Therefore, ensuring crew safety is of paramount importance to mitigate against any risks to human health. Although, it may be said that these fuels have been shipped as cargo for decades, these have been typically transported in specialist vessels with specialist, experienced crews onboard. However, with approximately 49% vessels in the current orderbooks able to run on alternative fuels, this fleet increase will initially likely lead to the dilution of expertise and a higher risk of incidents of these substances. So, the key consideration of the shipowner should be to ensure that the crew possess regular, specialist training on how to respond to a spill of the substance type being used as bunkers. This training could be in the form of regular drills, exercises, workshops and specialist training courses.
As for the equipment on-board, most alternative fuelled vessels are likely to be ‘dual fuel’, meaning that they can run on both alternative fuels (LNG, methanol, ammonia, etc.), as well as conventional fuel oil onboard. Therefore, the need for traditional oil spill response equipment within the shipboard oil pollution emergency plan (SOPEP) box will still be required in the event of an oil release. However, protective and monitoring equipment should also be available in the event of a release of the alternative fuel. As the response techniques are limited for these fuel types, this equipment would primarily comprise back-up protective equipment for example, purifying air respirators, spare filtration cartridges, self-contained breathing apparatus [SCBA), appropriate gloves [e.g. thermally insulated for cryogenic liquids] and possible eyewash kits for corrosive substances. Detection devices such as multi-gas monitors and photo-ionisation detectors should also be provided to monitor potentially hazardous conditions. Some chemical sorbents or neutralising agents could also be provided for small spills on deck.
However, it is worth noting that this equipment is only used as a last resort as many safety systems are built into the ship design and operational protocols designed to limit such spills and leaks. These include the installation of emergency release couplings on transfer hoses, undertaking leak tests and line purging before and after bunkering, installation of emergency shutdown devices in the event of a leak and onboard gas detection monitors to rapidly identify high-risk areas.
Finally, regarding shipowners’ considerations around future viability of these fuels, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets have prompted research into many different alternative fuels, as well as efficiency strategies to meet these emissions requirements. It has become clear in recent years that there is no single solution for meeting these targets, nor is there a “silver bullet” fuel type that has emerged as clearly superior to others. This is one of the reasons, alongside alternative fuel availability and price, that has driven the development of “dual fuel” engines, which offer the flexibility to use alternative fuels like methanol, LNG, LPG, ammonia alongside conventional fuel oil. This is why it is important, when evaluating the future viability of these fuel options, to consider many factors. These include infrastructure availability, price stability, energy density, the type of vessel, for example ammonia bunkers, with its human health risks, are less suitable for passenger ferries as well as total lifecycle emissions impact.
Q | What differences are there for responding to spills of alternative fuels in comparison to traditional hydrocarbon fuel spills?
Alternative fuels differ significantly from conventional fuel oils in their properties, fate, and behaviour when spilled into the marine environment. While biofuels’ properties are the most closely linked with traditional fuels, others like ammonia, LNG, LPG, and hydrogen exist as gases at ambient temperatures. When spilled, these cryogenic, refrigerated or pressurised liquids rapidly transition to gases before dissipating into the atmosphere. A large spill may be over in minutes to hours unlike the days to months associated with oil spills. Methanol, although liquid, readily vaporises and fully dissolves in water when spilled resulting in short-lived residence in the environment and therefore minimal clean-up activities.
However, these alternative fuels pose unique hazards. Their vapours can create acute fire/explosion risks if concentrations reach their flammability ranges in the presence of an ignition source. Additional hazards arise from the toxicity of ammonia and methanol, and the sub-zero temperatures in which ammonia, LPG, LNG and hydrogen are stored. As a result of these hazards, spills of these substances present significantly greater risks to crew, responders, and nearby populations compared to conventional fuel oil spills.
The initial response to alternative fuel spills is primarily hazard-driven, contrasting with the behaviour-driven approach typical for oil spills. Oil spill responders often can be engaged rapidly with minimal information, given the relatively low human health risks and the general applicability of available equipment like booms and skimmers. However, alternative fuel spills require rapid information exchange between the master or coastguard and responders so that they can conduct risk assessments, determine safe distances, select appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and respiratory protective equipment (RPE), and develop strategies for source control if feasible and safe. Given these complexities, responding to alternative fuel incidents demands a high level of expertise, necessitating the leadership of specialised response teams. These initial risk assessments will determine the response technique and, given the short-lived nature of these substances as they vapourise and are lost to the atmosphere, the best possible technique may be to monitor and evaluate from a safe distance if the incident does not pose a significant threat to life. However, this too will require specific planning to ensure the availability of specialised equipment.
Q | Given this, what are the implications of clean-up and preventive measures of spills of these substances?
The spill response industry is expected to undergo a notable transition from extensive shoreline clean-up efforts typical of oil spills to short-term localised events, where the primary focus may shift to monitoring and evaluation of risks to affected areas. Given that many substances will remain in the environment for only a short period after a spill, traditional oil clean-up techniques, such as using booms and skimmers are very likely to be ineffective. Most substances, apart from biofuels, such as biodiesels and vegetable oils, cannot be recovered. Therefore, allowing natural attenuation to take place while monitoring the situation from a safe distance may be the most viable clean-up strategy.
In the aftermath of a fuel release, the focus will likely involve three main areas:
- Detection and monitoring: This may include using specialised atmospheric plume models and multi-gas sensors, possibly mounted on specialised unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)s, to detect flammable or toxic vapor mixtures and define exclusion zones.
- Prevention and source control: This would involve stopping the leak, if considered safe to do so, managing fire risks, preventing further spills, and minimising impacts on sensitive areas, for instance, via installation of water curtains to ‘knock down’ harmful gaseous plumes.
- Bunker removal or transfer: When feasible, transferring fuel between ships may be necessary to mitigate risks to nearby receptors.
While clean-up and preventive measures will differ significantly from those used in oil spills, there are still potential measures that can be undertaken to address the risks associated with alternative fuel spills.
Q | So how can we foresee clean-up claims from alternative fuel spills looking like in the future? Are they expected to be less intensive given the short-lived nature of the substances in the environment?
Claims arising from clean-up and preventive measures from alternative fuel spills are yet to be fully understood, as various factors will influence the associated costs and liabilities. While most alternative fuels such as LNG, LPG, ammonia, methanol, hydrogen and lithium-ion batteries may have a shorter-lived presence in the environment compared to traditional heavy fuel oils, they can still result in large clean-up and preventive measure costs relating to source control and firefighting measures. For example, in the event of a lithium-ion battery fire onboard a vessel, a protracted firefighting operation may take place that could lead to considerable costs in addition to dealing with large quantities of waste from the ship and any firefighting water run-off generated by the response. In addition, while such spills require the involvement of a smaller number of responders, these responders must be highly trained, with specialised monitoring and protective equipment.
A lot of parallels can be drawn from Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) carried as cargo. However, there are decades of experience from vessels that carry these alternative fuels as cargo and handling the resultant claims including LNG fuelled vessels. While there might be multiplication of risk if vessels have dual fuel capability and are carrying dangerous cargo, these risks can be mitigated and managed with different safety procedures/standards compared to carrying them as cargo.
Q | What sort of information would national authorities, salvors and technical experts require in the case of a spill?
Information required by authorities, salvors and responders is similar to the information required for any emergency vessel-related incident albeit with additional details about the cargo/bunkers. The time of the incident, the coordinates of where the incident occurred, the name of the vessel and owner, the cause of the incident and nature of the damage and a description of the cargo and bunker fuel on board are the first key pieces of information usually provided. With alternatively fuelled vessels, the details of the bunkers will be paramount. For instance, what bunkers the vessel is using (e.g., specifications, manufacturers’ safety data sheet [SDS), the capacity and layout of the fuel tanks and how the fuel is stored for example, pressurised, refrigerated, or cryogenic.
In the event of a spill, one important factor is whether the spill occurred above or below the waterline. With substances such as ammonia and methanol, this will impact their fate and behaviour in the environment. For instance, a spill above the waterline for ammonia would result in a larger portion of the substance remaining as a gas, therefore increasing the size of an atmospheric plume in comparison to an underwater release, where more ammonia would dissolve and not be airborne. As ammonia is toxic, this atmospheric plume can have significant consequences on the crew and nearby receptors.
Given the short timeframes of alternative fuel incidents, this information needs to be provided as soon as possible and to the correct recipient. It is therefore essential that a vessel’s’ pollution emergency plans have a clear notification protocol in place to allow the rapid dissemination of this essential information to relevant national authorities, salvors and technical experts.
Q | For a significant alternative fuel spill, what damages are likely to arise from the incident? Would they be similar to those property damage or economic loss claims arising from oil pollution claims?
Unlike large spills of traditional hydrocarbons, the environmental damage associated with spills of alternative fuels is likely to be localised to the incident location and short-lived due to the non-persistent nature of the substances. Rather than the smothering of surface-dwelling animals over a relatively large area as seen in oil spills over the years, risks could arise from localised temperature reductions caused by cryogenic fuels such as LNG and hydrogen. Other environmental risks could be localised increases of seawater pH or increased algal bloom generation near the vessel in the event of a large ammonia spill. Biofuels are still likely to have a smothering effect on wildlife but due to high rates of biodegradation of biofuels, it is expected that this fuel type will be less persistent than traditional heavy fuel oils.
Property damage may differ significantly, with associated costs possibly being much higher than for oil pollution cases. As several alternative fuels are flammable and can lead to fire and or explosion, the potential impact on nearby properties such as nearby vessels, port structures, and buildings may be significant. These might require outright replacement of these assets if destroyed in comparison to the cleaning of vessel hulls and buildings that have been oiled. In addition to the risk of large property damage claims, an exclusion zone might be established to limit this damage. However, if an exclusion zone were to cause the closure of a shipping lane or port, the potential demurrage costs may be significant.
Finally, but most importantly, there is a risk of potential significant loss of life through exposure to toxic atmospheres and/or flammable conditions leading to fires and explosions. This not only impacts crews but also can affect nearby populations with a risk of long-term health impacts, if not loss of life.
Q | Can the shipowner limit liability in the event of an alternative fuel spill?
Due to the lack of an international framework that addresses the spill of HNS as bunkers, the handling of a claim and the amount of compensation available to victims may vary depending on the jurisdiction in which the incident took place. In some jurisdictions, the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) would be the regulatory regime that would dictate the limitation while in some countries which are not signatories to the LLMC, national legislation would be potentially relied upon. It is worth highlighting that the 2010 HNS Convention, which has yet to come into effect, only covers HNS carried “as cargo”, and therefore excludes HNS used as bunker fuel. As many alternative fuels are classified as HNS when transported as cargo, this creates a gap in international pollution liability conventions.
This gap in the current international maritime regulatory framework leaves both shipowners and potential victims of alternative fuel spills without a clear mechanism to receive prompt compensation.
Q | How do emergency spill procedures differ between hydrocarbon fuels to alternative fuels? In the event of a small release onboard, what actions can the crew take to mitigate risks?
Emergency spill procedures for hydrocarbon fuels are similar for biofuels (e.g., FAME, HVO), as both substances behave similarly when spilled on deck and can be cleaned up rapidly using items such as sorbent materials from the SOPEP box in the event of a small spill. If spilled into the marine environment, biofuels will persist and float on the water surface like conventional oil and these can be contained using boom and recovered using skimmers or nets and scoops.
Emergency spill procedures for gaseous and volatile alternative fuels (e.g., LNG, LPG, ammonia, hydrogen and methanol) differ drastically. Some parallel themes exist in the fact that prompt detection and controlling the source of the release is paramount, if safe to do so. However, the hazards of these volatile substances dictate the response and due to the risks from flammability, explosivity, toxicity and corrosivity, emergency plans need to be well-practised, robust and tested on scenario-based risk assessments.
In the event that emergency shutdown systems fail, and a leak occurs this will be either visually detected by the crew or detected by the crew’s personal gas monitors or the fixed detection instruments present at specific locations on the vessel. Once a leak or spill is detected the primary resource that the crew should use is the vessel’s shipboard marine pollution emergency plan (SMPEP) and procedure. If concentrations exceed the level of protection supplied by the crew’s Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), the procedure should state that the crew should escape to a safe area on the vessel to monitor and evaluate the situation. If a response is possible, appropriate PPE should be worn, and the SMPEP should be followed further.
Within this plan, there should be clear instructions similar to the Emergency Schedule (EmS) found within the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code). For example, in the event of a fire, the emergency plan should state whether to use dry chemical powder (e.g., LNG, LPG), to avoid directing water to the source of the leak (e.g., ammonia) or to undertake standard firefighting procedures (e.g., biofuels). In the event of a small spill on deck, the plan should clearly state for flammable, toxic or corrosive gases (e.g., LNG, LPG, ammonia) to let the gas dissipate and to keep clear; or in the event of a spill of a flammable liquid (e.g., methanol), to wash overboard with copious amounts of water. Although a spill of these fuels might be small, if situated in a confined space, it is possible for asphyxiation to occur due to oxygen displacement or a flammable mixture to be present leading to a fire or explosion. Any clean-up operation needs to be done in a safe environment for crew members. If considered to be safe, although these substances can be highly volatile and short-lived, there may still be measures to be undertaken by the crew to mitigate against further damages. It is essential that crew members exposed to these substances are appropriately and regularly trained with drills and exercises.
Q | What PPE is required for the crew for these alternatively-fuelled vessels?
Although PPE is the last line of defence, the crew onboard need to be wearing appropriate protective equipment for the risk scenario that they may be exposed to. The following example is for an ammonia-fuelled vessel as it poses a very high risk to crew onboard due to the substance’s toxicity and corrosivity.
For those working where ammonia is likely to be present but with a low risk of exposure and who can escape rapidly to an area of safety onboard, PPE should comprise long sleeved shirts and long trousers, gloves, face shield or safety glasses as well as safety footwear. An escape mask with suitable cartridge filters should also be carried, which can provide respiratory protection in the event of an emergency and provide a minimum of 15 minutes of non-contaminated air.
For those responsible for higher risk tasks such as connecting bunkering hoses or undertaking maintenance or who may have a higher risk of encountering ammonia leaks and splashes, a higher level of PPE is required. A lighter chemical suit should be sufficient to shield against most hazards. Operators should also be equipped with a full-face respirator with an ammonia removal cartridge. This combination allows for rapid escape to a safe area if required.
The highest level of PPE should then be provided to emergency responders, who are tasked with accessing contaminated areas to render systems safe, a process that may take a longer period of time. For this level of protection, a gas-tight suit is essential. This suit should provide full coverage for the entire body, be impermeable to ammonia and offer some protection in cold environments. In addition to the suit, the use of SCBA is likely to be necessary. However, it is worth noting that gearing up responders with these suits takes time (typically at least 30 minutes) and requires several support personnel to assist with the adornment of the PPE.
For other gaseous or volatile fuels (LNG, LPG, methanol and hydrogen), SCBA should be available in the event that an area requires access where oxygen levels may have been displaced by vapours. However, the main risk related to these substances is their flammability and explosivity. In these instances, typically bunker gear is worn to protect the responder from flames. In addition, for cryogenic liquids, thermal insulated gloves are necessary in the event of exposure to extremely low temperatures. All responders should ensure that they work in a safe environment thanks to portable gas detectors, particularly working in enclosed spaces.
A balance of protection and practicality is required to ensure safe performance of operations and safety to workers in the event of a leak/spill of these hazardous substances.
Beyond selecting the appropriate PPE, it is also important to recognise human physical limits and factor them into safety measures and emergency response planning. The effectiveness of the emergency response team can diminish over time due to heat stress, fatigue, and restricted mobility. To ensure realistic and practical safety protocols, feedback from the crew should be incorporated—particularly through drills and exercises. For example, assessing whether 30 minutes in the highest level of PPE (gas-tight suit and SCBA) is the maximum duration crew members can remain effective is important to help refine emergency response strategies. A balance between protection and practicality is essential to maintaining both operational safety and crew well-being during HNS exposure.
Q | What can ports and national authorities do to prepare for a large spill of alternative fuels?
In most cases, responding to a major incident involving hazardous substances will likely require not only government agencies but also technical experts, private organisations, and the broader response industry. Therefore, preparedness and efficient communication between these parties are critical for ensuring an effective response, with a particular focus on health and safety measures such as monitoring, PPE, and decontamination.
Current regulations for hazardous and noxious substances (HNS), like the 2000 OPRC-HNS Protocol, emphasise the importance of preparedness through contingency planning. This encourages states and organisations to create scalable spill response plans that are compatible at all levels, —from local facilities to international operations. To assist with such preparedness, multiple UN Regional Activity Centres (REMPEC, Bonn Agreement, and HELCOM) requested the development of the Marine HNS Response Manual by Cedre, ISPRA, and ITOPF. This manual is a key resource for contingency planners, government agencies, port operators, and the emergency response industry in preparing for spills involving alternative fuels.
For ports, regions, and nations to develop effective contingency plans, these plans must be built on comprehensive risk assessments carried out in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. An effective contingency plan typically includes:
- Regular spill training workshops for all operators
- Regular drills and exercises involving all relevant agencies (such as port authorities and industry)
- Readily accessible PPE and HAZMAT equipment
- Fate and trajectory models predicting the likely direction and spread of vapour plumes
- UAVs/ROVs equipped with sensors to monitor atmospheric vapour concentrations
- Mapping of sensitive environmental and economic areas
Regular training is essential to mitigate risks associated with these fuels. To function as a cohesive unit, all responders must fully understand the contingency plan and their own roles, as well as those of others. Clear communication channels during training exercises will enable efficient information exchange during future responses.
Q | What activities are ITOPF undertaking to keep up with the ever-changing spill response landscape?
ITOPF was founded in 1968 to administer a voluntary pollution agreement following the first major supertanker spill, the TORREY CANYON. Over the past 57 years, it has adapted with the industry as technologies have developed, expanded its services to include non-tankers, and adjusted its scope and role on-site to best serve all parties affected by a ship-source spill. Over the past 20 years, it has established itself as a leader in providing technical advice to spills of cargo other than oil, such as HNS.
With the impending adoption of alternative fuels within the global fleet, this is another change to which ITOPF is in the process of adapting. To ensure its readiness to provide timely and accurate advice to its members and associates, ITOPF set up an internal ‘new developments’ group in 2020 to research what spills of these future fuels may entail, how they interact with humans and the environment, if any clean-up methods would be suitable and what are the damage and liability implications from these spills. This group has expanded in recent years and is now within a larger working group at the organisation as work has progressed on this topic.
As part of ITOPF’s clear strategy to support the preparedness of its stakeholders, it has developed multiple training workshops and materials that are interactive, realistic and tailor-made for the attendees. The development of an alternative fuel/HNS tabletop exercise, named HYDRO NEXUS, guides attendees through each step of an alternative fuel/HNS response, including information gathering, hazard identification, risk assessment, appropriate PPE selection and the use of different techniques and equipment in these spill scenarios. One key component of the exercise was to demonstrate to attendees the potential impacts and claims that governments and insurers may face during an alternative fuel/HNS incident.
CLOSING REMARKS
As the maritime industry transitions to alternative fuels, operational experience and technological advancements will help reduce risks over time. However, the potential for complacency remains a concern and must be proactively addressed. As familiarity with these fuels increases, mitigating measures and industry best practices will continue to evolve.
To support Members in managing these challenges, Britannia remains committed to proactive loss prevention and has expanded its educational initiatives, offering training–including seminars, webinars and guidance publications–as well as tailored guidance. Through industry collaborations and dedicated resources such as LP Insights – Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fuels Updates, the Club provides ongoing support to help Members navigate the regulatory, technical, operational, and safety challenges of alternative fuel adoption.
By fostering awareness and preparedness, Britannia aims to contribute to a safer, more resilient future for the shipping industry as it advances on its decarbonisation journey.
BACK TO KNOWLEDGE