77 Spring 2025 Proceedings LNG LNG there are significant concerns about safety and health risks for responders. Several Regional Response Team members, especially on the West Coast, cited methanol as an emerging concern due to the ever-increasing vol- ume being transported. Methanol is seen as a benefit for many shippers because of its low production cost, lower risk of flammability compared to gasoline, and can be manufactured from a variety of carbon-based feedstock.7 Clear guidance is required for responding to a methanol spill incident with emphasis on prioritizing the safety and health of responders. At IOSC 2024, Jim Elliott, chief operating officer of the Teichman Group of Companies, presented a paper about the current state of alternative fuel response operations. “Driven by increasingly outdated regulatory standards, the current salvage and oil spill response industries are primarily focused on traditional oil containment, recov- ery, transfer, and storage operations,” Elliott wrote. “To address the risks created by alternative fuels, marine casualty response professionals will need to evolve in planning, preparedness, and response capabilities to manage these unique hazards and risk profiles.8 This directly ties to one of the Coast Guard Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy’s (CG-MER) top initiatives, which is improving responder safety. This is even more critical with new and emerging alternative fuels on the horizon. Not only is CG-MER concerned about the most effec- tive approach for mitigating environmental impacts when alternative fuel spills occur, it also seeks guidance about how to prevent risks to responders’ health and safety. There is also uncertainty about the effectiveness of oil spill response equipment/strategies typically used for refined products and crude petroleum if they are used with alternative fuels. Anticipating and preparing for alternative fuel spills directly ties to the current Coast Considerations for Using Liquefied Natural Gas as an Alternative Fuel Use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a fuel has increased significantly over the past decade. Growth in LNG bunkering infrastructure in U.S. ports has grown proportionately with Jacksonville and Port Canaveral, Florida, Houston and Galveston, Texas, Los Angeles/Long Beach, California, and Tacoma, Washington, receiving major investments for LNG bunkering facilities. The Port of Houston, for example, has approximately 1 million gallons of LNG storage capacity and the Port of Jacksonville has a LNG bunkering terminal, trucktoship bunkering, and vesseltovessel bunkering capabilities. Container ships, large passenger vessels, rollon/rolloff carriers, and offshore support vessels are some of the vessel types using and bunkering LNG in the United States. Numerous resources, like the Coast Guard’s Chemical Hazard Response Information System, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s ComputerAided Manage ment of Emergency Operations chemicals database, and the Department of Transportation’s Emergency Response Guide book 2024 detail LNG’s hazards. Additionally, the Liquefied Gas Carrier National Center of Expertise, has played a major role in LNG safety training and fostered the transition to LNG as a maritime fuel, along with the Coast Guard offices of Commercial Vessel Compliance, Operating and Environ mental Standards, and Design and Engineering Standards. As with rapid implementation of any technology, chal lenges with LNG marine fuel will emerge requiring both comprehensive analysis and technical expertise. The Coast Guard Research and Development Center is uniquely poised to address emerging issues and provide scientifically backed, innovative solutions. Visit https://bit.ly/LCGNCOE to learn more about the Liquefied Gas Carrier National Center of Expertise and its extensive compilation of policy letters, guidance, and bulletins. For more information
