Murtaza Gandhi, Manager, Qualitative Risk and Sustainability at BakerRisk, provided a talk on process safety tools for hydrogen applications. Key discussion points of this presentation are summarized below.

With the quick advent of hydrogen as a primary alternative fuel in the global energy transition, the challenges of installing hydrogen infrastructure in non-industrial applications have risen. Research is being conducted by private sector and governments and tools are being advanced quickly to fill the gap in understanding the safety implications. There are various tools available in the process safety toolkit and how they can be applied to the various aspects of hydrogen infrastructure is important for organizations to understand.

Mr. Gandhi highlighted several challenges and best practices for incorporating process safety into project life cycles:

The importance of early-stage master planning, especially for future expansions, to avoid costly upgrades.

Delayed safety considerations can lead to significant expenses, as demonstrated by cases where equipment addition costs significantly more when identified late in the project.

Evergreen safety studies and updated risk assessments are crucial.

Site layout, spacing, and fire protection cannot be planned late in the process, with the need for early hazard identification and risk-based mitigation strategies.

Understanding risk receptors when planning the layout and prioritizing safety investments based on risk scenarios can minimize impacts and ensure project success.

Challenges in Incorporating Process Safety

During the Capital Value Process (CVP) of project planning, it is important to perform stage reviews to ensure that each stage of a project is completed as anticipated. Often, the first challenge is a lack of master planning, especially when installing electrolyzers with future expansion in mind. The risk profile changes significantly when future expansions are considered, leading to costly upgrades and safety system changes. Another challenge is the inconsistent application of safety policies across sites, especially after acquisitions.

Issues of Delayed Safety Planning

Delays in addressing safety issues lead to expensive changes, such as adding a valve that should have been included in the initial design. The importance of evergreen safety studies is emphasized, with the presenter stressing that updates should be made even for small changes to ensure safety. Various safety studies, including site layout and spacing, were discussed, while noting that early-stage decisions can significantly impact safety.

Site Layout and Safety Considerations

Mr. Gandhi explained the importance of site layout and spacing, mentioning that different locations can have vastly different risk profiles. The layout of storage, compressors, and other equipment is crucial, with him highlighting the need for early-stage planning.

Fire protection and emergency response routes were discussed, emphasizing the need for access to water and other resources in case of emergencies. The placement of buildings and people is also important, administrative staff may not be as aware of hazards as operators.

PHA Techniques and Risk Tolerance

The expert discussed the various Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) techniques, including structured what-if analysis, and the importance of selecting the right tools. The need for good risk tolerance criteria and defining what risk can be tolerated was emphasized. Prevention is highlighted as better than mitigation, with Mr. Ghandhi advising to focus on prevention early in the project to save costs and headaches. The importance of learning from previous incidents and Management of Changes (MOCs) to inform current safety studies was mentioned.

Key Areas of Hazards in Hydrogen Facilities

The presentation outlined key areas of hazards in hydrogen facilities, including electrolyzers, hydrogen storage, compression, loading, and unloading. An example of an alkaline electrolyzer was provided, with the BakerRisk representative explaining the initiating cause, consequences, and safeguards. The misunderstanding of deflagration panels and the importance of independent protection layers (IPL) were highlighted.

Layout and Spacing Considerations

Mr. Gandhi discussed the importance of layout and spacing in facility design, mentioning report requirements and standard distances. Risk-based sizing and prioritizing mitigation are emphasized, noting the challenges of consequence-based studies. Compliance with various safety regulations, including OSHA 1910 and CSA standards, was mentioned. The importance of understanding gas dispersion, thermal radiation, and overpressure in facility design was highlighted.

Risk Tolerance Criteria and Prioritization

The presenter discussed setting up risk tolerance criteria and the importance of understanding risk receptors. The changing risk receptors, such as urban areas and heavy motor vehicles, were mentioned. The importance of prioritizing safety spending based on risk scenarios is emphasized. Various options for risk mitigation, including process changes, relocating equipment, and designing buildings, were discussed.

Fire Detection and Emergency Response

Mr. Gandhi outlined the stages of fire detection and emergency response, including identification, response, protection, and stabilization. The importance of early detection and response, such as shutdown or deluge, was stressed. The role of fire protection people in incident command and personal recovery was discussed. The need for various technical studies to minimize risks and ensure safe production and use of hydrogen was also highlighted.

Testing Very-Lean Hydrogen and Worst-Case Ammonia Vented Deflagration to Improve Industry Safety Modeling

Peter Diakow, Hydrogen Lead and Senior Consultant, at BakerRisk provided a talk on internal testing results conducted to improve hazard prediction methods. Key discussion points of this presentation are summarized below.

The discussion focused on deflagration tests with ammonia and hydrogen, comparing internal and external blast loads to predictive methods like NFPA 68 and FLACS CFD (FLACS (FLame ACceleration Simulator) is a commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software used extensively for explosion modeling.

Key findings included negligible blast loads for ammonia and 10% hydrogen, with significant overpressure starting at 13% hydrogen. At 16% hydrogen, blast loads were similar to methane. NFPA 68 predictions were conservative for low overpressure cases but underpredicted higher concentrations. FLACS simulations were generally conservative but accurately captured wave shapes. The summary emphasized the importance of understanding predictive tools' limitations and the negligible hazard of ammonia and lean hydrogen mixtures.

Overview and Background of Testing

The focus was on gathering benchmark data on internal and external blast loads, with secondary data collection efforts on panel response and fireballs. Recent work has focused on worst-case scenarios involving ammonia and hydrogen, which are currently hot topics for energy vectors. Mr. Diakow covered the impacts of fuel concentration and type on internal and external blast loads, comparing them to predictive methods like NFPA 68 and FLACS CFD code.

Historical Context and Previous Findings

Mr. Diakow referenced previous work by Baker Risk, which showed that ammonia-air mixtures outdoors do not pose significant VCE hazards. A testing video from 2016 was played to illustrate a slow-burning flash fire with ammonia, demonstrating that external ammonia VC hazards are not credible.

Recent hydrogen tests have shown that clouds below 10% hydrogen do not pose an external VC hazard, similar to the 2016 findings with ammonia.

The next question addressed was the impact of these mixtures in enclosed spaces, leading to the use of the Deflagration Load Generator (DLG rig) for testing.

Details of the Testing Apparatus and Methodology

The DLG rig is described as a large steel box with solid walls and one venting face, designed to be conservative and representative of real-world enclosures. The first test involves a worst-case mixture of ammonia and air, ignited at the rear of the rig to simulate a slow-burning flash fire.

The test results show that ammonia does not develop significant overpressure or external blast loads, making it not a BCE hazard. The next test involves 10% hydrogen, which is on the lean side and does not produce significant overpressure indoors, similar to outdoor results.

Impact of Hydrogen Concentration on Blast Loads

Mr. Diakow discussed the impact of increasing hydrogen concentration from 10% to 13%, noting a significant increase in overpressure. A thermal IR video showed the hot combustion products exiting the rig at 13% hydrogen. At 16% hydrogen, the overpressure and thermal effects are much more severe, with hot gases traveling further and causing a larger hazard zone. Quantitative data on blast loads, including pressure and impulse, were presented, showing negligible overpressure for ammonia and 10% hydrogen but significant overpressure at 13% and 16% hydrogen.

Comparisons to Predictive Methods: NFPA 68

NFPA 68, is a standard for explosion protection by deflagration venting, and it includes correlations for peak pressure and duration. The key parameters for NFPA 68 include fuel-air mixture composition, which is changed for different tests.

From this testing, comparisons between test data and NFPA 68 predictions show good agreement for ammonia and 10% hydrogen but underprediction for 13% and 16% hydrogen. The conservative nature of NFPA 68 was discussed, with a minimum threshold for predictions that may not be applicable to worst-case scenarios.

Comparisons to Predictive Methods: FLACS CFD Code

FLACS CFD code was used for gas dispersion and deflagration modeling, which was performed before the tests with sensitivity studies. Key parameters for FLACS sensitivity studies include laminar burning velocity, pre-ignition flow velocity, turbulence intensity, and turbulence length scale. Visualizations and pressure traces were shown for different hydrogen concentrations, with FLACS predictions generally conservative but agreeing well for ammonia, 10% hydrogen, and 13% hydrogen. The wave shape and duration of peak pressure were highlighted as key metrics for comparison, with FLACS showing good agreement for most cases.

Summary and Conclusions

The key takeaway was that ammonia and 10% hydrogen produce negligible blast loads inside and outside the rig, aligning with external test results. The 16% hydrogen test produced blast loads similar to methane tests, which is an interesting comparison.

NFPA 68 showed good agreement for ammonia and 10% hydrogen but underpredicted for higher concentrations, emphasizing the need for understanding the tool's limitations. FLACS predictions were conservative for peak pressure but showed good agreement for wave shape and duration, aligning with previous comparisons.

Hydrogen Setback Methodologies

Thomas Drube, Vice President, Engineering, Chart Industries Inc. provided a talk on the methodologies that are employed to establish risk-based setback distances for hydrogen system. Key discussion points of this talk are summarized below.

The discussion focused on the process of ensuring safety in equipment design, emphasizing the transition from a simplified code compliance approach to more complex hazard analysis and risk assessment methods. Key techniques include qualitative methods like HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Study) and FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis), and quantitative methods using conservative assumptions to inform codes and standards. The conversation highlighted the importance of self-critical evaluation and the use of industry-accepted criteria to rank risks. Specific metrics such as societal and individual risk limits were discussed, with examples from NFPA updates and Sandia National laboratory`s liquid hydrogen studies. The goal is to streamline risk assessment and ensure consistent, safe outcomes through standardized methods.

Simplified Approach and Code Compliance

Mr. Drube explained the simplified approach, emphasizing the use of familiar codes like NFPA 2 and following rules. He discussed the limits of use and the need for a qualitative approach when code limits are violated. He mentioned the inputs for code compliance, including equipment design and process and instrumentation drawings and closed this part by highlighting the importance of a hazardous materials plan and code compliance checklist.

Qualitative Approach and Hazard Analysis

Mr. Drube introduced the qualitative approach, including process hazard analysis (PHA) techniques like HAZOP, FMEA, and event tree analysis. He emphasized the reliance on group wisdom for statistical basis in PHA results. Then, he discussed the need for self-critical evaluation of PHA quality and the possibility of needing a PHA plus. He then continued to mention the use of industry-acceptable criteria and rank-ordering of likelihood and consequence.

Quantitative Approach and Risk-Informed Methods

Mr. Drube outlined the need for a quantitative approach when not comfortable with PHA and explained the complexity of site-specific considerations and the necessity of comparing numeric results to agreed-upon limits. The use of conservative assumptions to simplify quantitative approaches and the concept of risk-informed methods was discussed. The expert did not forget to mention the importance of substantiated, scientific-based numbers in design and documentation.

NFPA and Liquid Hydrogen Setbacks

Mr. Drube explained the determination of consequence and likelihood to calculate risk, using limits for individual and societal risks. He discussed the complexity of a full analysis, including all potential leak sizes, atmospheric conditions, and consequences, and he highlighted the use of conservative assumptions to create tools for code standards.

Design Inputs and Uncertainties

The issue of choosing design inputs like fluid temperature, pressure, and pipe size was mentioned without leaving out the statistical basis for hole size and failure rates while choosing the inputs. In addition to modeling inputs correctly, Mr. Drube discussed the importance of mitigation and accounting for population densities in the design process. He emphasized the use of conservative assumptions for atmospheric conditions, ignition sources, and lethality models.

Model Selection and Endpoint Criteria

The selection of physical models for analysis, including flame models, gas dispersion models, and overpressure models is critical to planning success. Mr. Drube discussed the use of the Sandia National Laboratory tool for this modeling and the selection of different models and inputs. Picking worst-case scenarios for atmospheric conditions and wind direction is as important as picking the correct end-point criteria, including heat profiles, gas concentration, and overpressure limits.

Aggregate Values and Risk Contours

The speaker discussed the aggregation of outputs to calculate societal and individual risk and explained the ranking of consequences and likelihood to create risk contours. He stated the use of simplified methods to compare different models and determine the furthest reach and highlighted the importance of intuitive risk contours for facility planning.

Individual Risk Criteria

The ranking of individual risk based on distance and adding up all potential impacts is a priority during the process planning process. Mr. Drube discussed the importance of picking criteria for individual risk, such as 1e-6 or 1e-5, and mentioned the comparison to gas station accidents and the need for industrial community agreement on criteria to ensure tightening of the cycle of wrong answers and guessing in risk analysis.

Risk-Informed Methods and Tools

Mr. Drube discussed the use of risk-informed methods to simplify the process and reduce the cycle of wrong answers. He mentioned the use of tools to calculate distance limits based on site-specific conditions and stressed the importance of having consistent and safe answers through standardized methods.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Mr. Drube concluded the presentation by emphasizing the importance of understanding inputs and outputs in quantitative analysis and acknowledging the need for further discussion and tools for site-specific risk analysis for projects.

Green Hydrogen - Evolution and Challenges

Christian Rauchegger, Associate Director, Process Engineering at Linde, introduced a paper covering the outlook of Green Hydrogen breakthroughs needed to achieve full scale development. Key discussion points of this presentation are summarized below.

The discussion focused on safety concerns, including the risk of membrane failure and the need for adequate safeguards. The future of hydrogen production requires reliable, green energy sources and efficient, large-scale electrolyzers.

Operational Details and Safety Concerns of Electrolyzers

Mr. Rauchegger covered the typical setup for a PEM or alkaline electrolyzer, including the role of demineralized water and the separation of hydrogen and oxygen. He stated the known challenges of achieving pure hydrogen and the potential for flammable mixtures. Safety concerns related to oxygen handling and the need for proper training and awareness were emphasized by the presenter. The importance of safeguarding against ignition sources and ensuring proper membrane operation was stressed.

Safeguarding and Risk Management in Electrolyzer Operations

The ISO 22734 standard for electrolyzer safeguarding is comprehensive but the need for risk assessment, gas detection, and high ventilation is always there. The importance of safeguarding against block outlet cases and membrane failures was discussed by Mr. Rauchegger. He then moved on to mention the role of differential pressure trips in preventing hydrogen and oxygen cross-contamination and the need for sophisticated safeguarding systems, including temperature and flow measurement.

Future Directions and Challenges in Green Hydrogen Production

The need for large-scale green hydrogen production to meet future demand is undeniable, but challenges related to space, and electricity supply remain unsolved. The importance of green electricity for the entire hydrogen production process is non-negotiable. Mr. Rauchegger mentions that the potential for using green hydrogen in various applications, including transportation and industrial use as a tool for decarbonization requires immediate solutions to the green electricity challenges.

Conclusion and Outlook for Electrolyzer Technologies

The uncertainty about which electrolyzer technology will dominate by 2030 is a given, with alkaline being the most established. Mr. Rauchegger recognized the importance of safety, reliability, and efficiency in the industry and reiterated that the role of specialists in sharing their experience with electrolyzer vendors is critical to ensure proper green power management.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Explosion Protection: Comparison of Marine, Aviation, Automotive and Power Generation Requirements

by Mhamed Samet

On November 12, Frank Mair, Project Manager Fuel Cell, AVL List GmbH provided a talk on hydrogen fuel cell explosion protection at a webinar hosted by gasworld. Key highlights of this webinar are summarized below.

The webinar focused on hydrogen fuel cell explosion protection, highlighting its application in automotive, maritime, power generation, and aviation sectors. Mr. Mair discussed the challenges and solutions for explosion protection, emphasizing the importance of hazardous area classification, electrical equipment suitability, and maximum hydrogen concentrations. He detailed the development of a marine fuel cell module for TECO, including explosion testing and simulation to ensure safety. Key metrics included the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 and the importance of new technologies and fuels in achieving this goal.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Role of Hydrogen Fuel Cells

Mr. Mair presented graphs showing the transportation of passengers and goods, and emphasized the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the role of new technologies and fuels in achieving this goal. The IPCC 1.5-degree target and the need to cut emissions by more than 50% by 2050 were discussed, with hydrogen fuel cells and electrolyzers seen as vital for reaching these targets. The applications of hydrogen and fuel cells in the automotive, marine, stationary, and aviation sectors were outlined, with a focus on the challenges associated with each application. Energy density, production, storage, and transportation of green hydrogen, and safety concerns were identified as key challenges in the deployment of fuel cells.

Explosion Protection and Fire Triangle

Mr. Mair introduced the fire triangle model, explained the ingredients needed for a fire or explosion: oxygen, an oxidizing agent, and a fuel. The importance of removing any of these elements to prevent a fire or explosion was emphasized, along with the concept of hazardous area classification. The different applications of hydrogen and fuel cells were compared, with a focus on the standards applied in each sector and the similarities and differences in requirements. The maximum hydrogen concentrations allowed in applications and the requirements for electrical components to avoid ignition sources were discussed.

Hazardous Area Classification and Maximum Hydrogen Concentrations

The expert explained the hazardous area classification according to IEC 679 and the requirements for electrical equipment in different zones. The maximum hydrogen concentrations allowed in stationary, aviation, marine, and automotive applications were compared, with a focus on the stringent requirements for marine and aviation. The concept of severe faults and failure scenarios was introduced, with a focus on the requirements for investigating explosion scenarios in marine and aviation applications. The importance of containing explosions within the fuel cell module and ensuring no consequences to the surrounding structure was emphasized.

Development of the TECO Marine Fuel Cell Module

Mr. Mair provided an overview of the TECO marine fuel cell module development project, highlighting the comprehensive development cycle from vision to production planning. The focus is on the explosion protection aspect of the project, with a detailed explanation of the requirements for marine applications. The importance of avoiding hydrogen leakages and ensuring adequate ventilation to keep hydrogen concentrations below 25% of the lower flammability limit was emphasized. The hazardous area classification and the requirements for electrical equipment to avoid ignition sources were reiterated.

Explosion Testing and Simulation

Mr. Mair described the explosion testing conducted with a partner, investigating hydrogen concentration and explosion pressures in a dummy vessel. The results of the explosion testing were used to calibrate a CFD simulation model, ensuring the simulation approach is accurate. The simulation model was then applied to the actual geometry of the fuel cell box, simulating ventilation, hydrogen leakages, and explosions. The importance of designing flow guidance elements, improving ventilation, and investigating worst-case leakage and ignition scenarios was emphasized.

Containing Explosions within the Fuel Cell Module

The webinar presenter explained the measures taken to contain explosions within the fuel cell module, including the use of explosion relief devices. The explosion relief device was described as a spring-loaded plate that seals off the fuel cell box and releases gases to the ambient, cooling them to avoid harm to people outside the module. The importance of avoiding any leakages and ensuring adequate ventilation to prevent flammable mixtures was reiterated. The requirements for electrical equipment to avoid ignition sources and the importance of investigating severe faults and failure scenarios were emphasized.

Summary and Conclusion

Mr. Mair summarized the similarities and differences in the requirements for explosion protection in different applications, emphasizing the stringent requirements for marine and aviation. The importance of containing explosions within the fuel cell module and ensuring no consequences to the surrounding structure was reiterated. The comprehensive development approach for the TECO marine fuel cell module, including explosion testing and simulation, was highlighted. The webinar concluded with a focus on the importance of explosion protection in marine applications and the innovative solutions developed by AVL.

To access a recording of the webinar, click Here.

International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy (IPHE) Issues Hydrogen Certification 101 Paper

by Mhamed Samet

This October, the International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy (IPHE) issued Hydrogen Certification 101 Paper that was developed under the Breakthrough Agenda’s Hydrogen Breakthrough priority action H.1 “Standards and certification” coordinated by IPHE and IEA H2 TCP with support from IRENA. Each section of the paper is summarized below:

Clarity and precision on terminology and concepts used in hydrogen certification

Certification allows evidencing that a unit of hydrogen or a derivative product has been produced, stored, transported, and delivered with specific sustainability attributes. This commonly results in the issuance of electronic certificates, which may then be transferred either with or separately from the underlying physical hydrogen or a derivative product.

The paper provides clarity on the definition of a Certification system, Certification scheme (or mechanism), Certificate, Energy Attribute Certificates, Sustainability certificates, Standard, A chain of custody model, mass balancing, book and claim, Cancellation, and Expiration. In addition this paper mentions in detail the key elements of a certification scheme: Product attributes, Operational set-up and procedures, Chain of custody, and Information technology (IT).

Basic information on certification scheme design

The need for and types of attributes evidenced by certification schemes, as well as design features of schemes are largely driven by demands of the end-consumer, in line with mandatory (imposed by a regulatory obligation) or voluntary requirements (imposed by the consumer itself or its peers, driven by ESG reporting and disclosure requirements).

In this section, the paper authors mention four fundamental design principles for certification schemes: 1. Robustness, 2. Transparency, 3. Impartiality, and 4. Accuracy. Each of these design principles applies to the key elements of certification schemes mentioned earlier (i.e., product attributes, operational set up and procedures, chain of custody model, and information technology).

The purposes and functionalities of hydrogen certification schemes

The paper mentions in detail the main actors that use a certification scheme and how they use it (i.e., governments and legislators, producers, traders/suppliers/end-consumers, certification scheme owners, certification bodies (CB)/conformity assessment bodies (CAB)) and describes the interactions between scheme owners, certification bodies and accreditation bodies.

Mutual recognition of certification schemes for hydrogen and derivatives

To begin the process of accelerating mutual recognition of certification schemes, it is critical to create a common language on certification and the associated components and processes. To better understand how certification supports or inhibits trade, it is useful to distinguish the three concepts of tradability, interoperability, and mutual recognition. The paper covers all three of these concepts and their uses.

University of Maryland Center for Risk and Reliability issues a report titled “Hydrogen Systems Risk and Reliability Workshop Proceedings”

by Mhamed Samet

Hydrogen Systems Risk and Reliability Workshop Proceedings, authored by Katrina Groth, Antonio Ruiz, Victoriia Grabovetska, and Lauren Reising, documents the proceedings from the Hydrogen Systems Risk and Reliability Workshop hosted by the University of Maryland (UMD) in College Park, Maryland on September 12 and 13, 2024.

It aims to capture the insightful discussions and critical areas of concerns associated with risk and reliability of hydrogen technologies and infrastructure discussed during the workshop. The overall purpose is to promote a stakeholder collective understanding of key priorities and research area gaps that need to be addressed to advance a reliable hydrogen infrastructure. The workshop also served as the launchpad for the UMD Risk and Reliability Consortium and the Hydrogen Teaching and Engineering Research Program (HyTERP).

The workshop presenters included the leadership from the A. James Clark School of Engineering, speakers from industry, academia, government, and trade associations.

The first day of the program covered the role of hydrogen as a solution to meet the U.S. National clean energy goals and emission reduction targets with government perspectives including the DOE National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap, the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO), the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) activities.

Industry insights were provided by the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) discussing the key role of risk and reliability in the expansion of hydrogen technologies represented by Mr. Connor Dolan, the VP of External Affairs for FCHEA. Representatives from Plug Power, AcuTech Consulting Group, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) were also in attendance.

The report summarizes the panel discussions that included interactions between industry, academia, government representatives and national laboratories. In addition, the authors mention the capabilities of the Center for Risk and Reliability and the collaboration opportunities to advance the development, testing, and validation of new technologies.

The five research area gaps identified and prioritized by the stakeholders consist of the need to:

Create databases and mechanisms to share operational data for risk and reliability analyses

Reduce the impact of high maintenance cost and low spare parts availability on facility downtime

Build more hydrogen equipment testing capabilities at the component and system level

Develop safety codes and standards and test requirements for hydrogen systems

Educate, train, and develop the hydrogen industry engineering workforce

Experts Sought for Revision of the Compressed Gas Association CGA H-5 Standard for Bulk Hydrogen Supply Systems

by Karen Quackenbush, FCHEA

The Compressed Gas Association (CGA) is announcing the revision of H-5, Standard for Bulk Hydrogen Supply Systems. CGA H-5 is proposed for revision as an American National Standard and as a proposed National Standard of Canada. The H-5 consensus body is currently seeking participants in the producer, distributor, user, general interest, equipment supplier, and other categories.
 
CGA H-5 covers two types of bulk hydrogen supply systems: liquid and gaseous. A bulk gas hydrogen supply system is one that contains more than 5000 scf (141.6 m3) of hydrogen. A bulk liquid supply system is one that contains more than 39.7 gal (150 L) of hydrogen. Requirements of this standard are limited to systems operating up to 15 000 psi (103.4 MPa).

For this standard, a liquid system is defined as one where hydrogen is delivered to the supply system and stored on-site in liquid form. Hydrogen is supplied in either liquid or gaseous form to the end user’s requirement. When required, pumps and/or compressors are used to increase the hydrogen pressure before it is supplied to the end user. When required, coded vessels are used to store gaseous hydrogen before it is supplied to the end user. The system is considered to be a bulk liquid system instead of a bulk gaseous system because the hydrogen is delivered from the hydrogen supplier to the storage system in liquid form. For the purpose of this standard, a gaseous system is defined as one where hydrogen is delivered to the supply system, stored, and is supplied to the end user’s requirement in gaseous form.

CGA H-5 applies to hydrogen supply systems containing any of the following equipment:

cryogenic hydrogen storage tank, either aboveground or belowground;

gas storage vessels, either aboveground or belowground;

heat exchangers (including vaporizers);

valves including manual and automatic shutoff valves, and check valves;

pressure control equipment including regulators and control valves;

piping (pipe and tubing);

cryogenic pumps;

cryogenic and warm gas compressors;

snubbers and pulsation dampeners; and

monitoring and control systems including electrical and instrumentation.

The bulk hydrogen supply system terminates at the source valve or where the gaseous or liquid hydrogen supply first enters the supply line.

If you are interested in participating on the H-5 consensus body, please contact me Kristy Mastromichalis, Senior Program Manager, Standards & Committees (kmastomichalis@cganet.com) for more information.

Hydrogen and Fuel Cells for Aviation

by Karen Quackenbush, FCHEA

The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) has seen a growing interest in standards to support the use of hydrogen and fuel cells in aviation. This article highlights a few of the standards development bodies working in this area.

List of abbreviations: TC: Technical Committee, WG: Working Group, JWG: Joint Working Group, SC: Subcommittee.

SAE International

SAE AE-7F Hydrogen and Fuel Cells: https://standardsworks.sae.org/standards-committees/ae-7f-hydrogen-fuel-cells

Published documents:

SAE AS6858: Installation of Fuel Cell Systems in Large Civil Aircraft

AIR 6464: EUROCAE/SAE WG80/AE-7AFC Hydrogen Fuel Cells Aircraft Fuel Cell Safety Guidelines

Documents under development:

SAE AS7373 - Gaseous Hydrogen Storage for General Aviation - This document defines the technical guidelines for the safe integration, operation and maintenance, and for certification of Gaseous Hydrogen Storage Systems (GHSS) in general aviation. This document also defines guidelines for safe refuelling operation of gaseous hydrogen for aircraft.

SAE AS6679 - Liquid Hydrogen Storage for Aviation: This document defines the technical guidelines for the safe integration, operation and maintenance, and for certification of Liquid Hydrogen Storage Systems (LHSS) in aircraft. This document also defines guidelines for safe refuelling operation of hydrogen for aircraft.

SAE AS7141: Hydrogen Fuel Cells for Propulsion

SAE AIR7765: Considerations for Hydrogen Fuel Cells in Airborne Applications

SAE/EuroCAE (SAE International & EuroCAE Partnership)

AIR-8466 / ER-034 drafted by AE-5CH and WG80 SG-1 is jointly published.

AIR-8466: Hydrogen Fueling Stations for Airports, in Both Gaseous and Liquid Form. For further information, please see https://www.sae.org/standards/content/air8466/.

For further information on EuroCAE standards for aviation, please see https://www.eurocae.net/

ASTM International

ASTM F3547-24: Standard Specification for Fuel Cell Power Systems for Use in Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS): https://www.astm.org/f3547-24.html

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Gaps Analysis

Gaps Progress Report Available: ANSI UASSC Standardization Roadmap 2.0 for Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Gaps Progress Report Available: ANSI UASSC Standardization Roadmap 2.0 for Unmanned Aircraft Systems: https://www.ansi.org/standards-news/all-news/2024/11/11-7-24-gaps-progress-report-available-ansi-uassc

International Standards Organization

ISO/TC 197/SC1

ISO/AWI 19888-1: Hydrogen Technologies — Aerial Vehicles — Part 1: Liquid Hydrogen Fuel Storage System – under development: https://www.iso.org/committee/9387084.html

ISO/TC 20

Many documents have been published or are under development within the subcommittees of ISO/TC 20. While most of these documents are not specific to hydrogen or fuel cells, a few are. To see the committee and subcommittee scopes, as well as the list of standards published or under development, please visit https://www.iso.org/committee/46484.html.

Subcommittees Titles

ISO/TC 20/SC 1 Aerospace electrical requirements

ISO/TC 20/SC 4 Aerospace fastener systems

ISO/TC 20/SC 6 Standard atmosphere

ISO/TC 20/SC 8 Aerospace terminology

ISO/TC 20/SC 9 Air cargo and ground equipment

ISO/TC 20/SC 10 Aerospace fluid systems and components

ISO/TC 20/SC 13 Space data and information transfer systems

ISO/TC 20/SC 14 Space systems and operations

ISO/TC 20/SC 16 Uncrewed aircraft system

ISO/TC 20/SC 17 Airport infrastructure

ISO/TC 20/SC 18 Materials

ISO/TC 20/SC 16/JWG 9 - UAS Hydrogen Propulsion Systems, currently has two relevant documents under development:

ISO/AWI 25009: Unmanned aircraft systems — General requirements and test methods for the hydrogen fuel gas pipes of gaseous hydrogen fuel cell powered UAV

ISO/AWI 25013: Unmanned aircraft systems — General requirements and test methods for the attachable hydrogen cylinders of gaseous hydrogen fuel cell powered UAV

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Committee (IEC/TC 105) Plenary Meeting 2024 Highlights

by Karen Quackenbush, FCHEA

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Committee (IEC/TC 105), the committee responsible for International Standards on Fuel Cell Technologies, held their annual Plenary meeting on September 26-27, 2024, in Teddington, United Kingdom. Highlights of the meeting are summarized below.

List of abbreviations: TC: Technical Committee, WG: Working Group, JWG: Joint Working Group, SC: Subcommittee, PWI: Preliminary work item, PNW: New work item proposal, FDIS: Final Draft International Standard

PWI 105-1 General Safety Standard

Status update: There will be a change in the convenor for this work item.

PNW 105-1032 ED1 Fuel cell technologies – multi-generation of fuel cell systems for electricity, hydrogen generation and cooling – Performance test methods

Status update: A new NWIP is under circulation.

The following two documents were the subject of a Joint Working Group with ISO/TC 20 SC 16:

PNW 105-1035 ED1 Unmanned aircraft systems - General requirements and test methods for the hydrogen fuel gas pipes of gaseous hydrogen fuel cell powered UAV; and

PNW 105-1036 ED1 Unmanned aircraft systems - General requirements and test methods for the attachable hydrogen cylinders of gaseous hydrogen fuel cell powered UAV

Next steps: The joint WGs will be changed to create a liaison with ISO TC 20 SC 16 instead.

IEC 62282-3-100 ED3 Fuel cell technologies - Part 3-100: Stationary fuel cell power systems - Safety

Status update: August 12, 2026 is deadline to register Final Draft International Standard. There will be a change in the convenor for this work item.

IEC TR 62282-7-3 ED1

Fuel cell technologies - Part 7-3: Test methods - Status of accelerated tests for fuel cell stacks and components and perspectives for standardization.

Status update: In final stages of publishing the Technical Report.

IEC 62282-4-101 ED2 Fuel cell technologies - Part 4-101: Fuel cell power systems for electrically powered industrial trucks - Safety

IEC 62282-3-300 Fuel cell technologies - Part 3-300: Stationary fuel cell power systems – Installation - Systematic review initiated.

Status update: There will be a change in the convenor for this work item. The German National Committee may nominate a new Convenor.

New Work Item proposals

Ad hoc Group (ahG) 16 – NWIP on ‘PEM-Module performance test methods’

NWIP on ‘Performance test methods for portable fuel cells’

IEC 62282-5-100:2018 - Edition 1.0 (2018-04-12) - Fuel cell technologies - Part 5-100: Portable fuel cell power systems – Safety

NP to be provided Feb 2025.

NWIP on ‘PEM modules Size and interfaces definition’

Heavy-duty applications. See StasHH.eu. Towards a standardized fuel cell module. Mass production, reducing costs for interfaces at a system level. 6 categories of module.

Status update: This NWIP has recently been submitted for a Technical Specification.

NWIP on ‘Membrane electrode assembly Test method for PEFC’

Focus on MEA as a product. Performance, uniformity, quality of mass production.

Status update: NWIP to be submitted by end of this year or early next year (after national committee review).

NWIP on ‘Bipolar Plate Test Methods for PEFC’

Based on existing Chinese standards. Plan to publish within 3 years after team is formed.

NWIP on ‘PEM fuel cell stack - Simultaneous measurement method for hydrogen crossover’

Status update: There is no NWIP necessary to launch a TR. TC 105 decided to establish a new WG to elaborate a Technical Report on ‘PEM fuel cell stack - Simultaneous measurement method for hydrogen crossover’.

National Committees are kindly invited to nominate experts, who should have expertise in the field of measurement methods for hydrogen crossover in PEMFC-stacks and could make an effective contribution to the work of this WG.

ahG 18 - Design guidelines for interchangeability of FC stack modules in stationary applications: a proposal for scope extension of 62282-2

Status update: Ammonia as fuel for FCs, based on European project - AMON Consortium. IEC 62282-2-100 document may be a home for this work. Communications initiated to MT 201 for next revision.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Fuel Cells

Status update: There is evidence that electrolyzers and fuel cells emit some PFAS components. TC 105 is watching this area to consider future work.

IEC 62282-4-601 – Extension of scope to wheel loaders

Thermal management/vibration resistance/environment resistance technology

Status update: This would be a NWIP for a document to cover safety aspects for excavators and wheel loaders. In 2025, when the performance standard for excavators is open, it may be revised to include wheel loaders in the scope.

Future meetings:

The following locations are being considered for future plenary meetings of IEC/TC 105:

2025: IEC General Meeting will take place in Mumbai/India

2026: IEC General Meeting will take place in Hamburg/Germany

ANSI issues Report: ANSI UASSC Standardization Roadmap 2.0 for Unmanned Aircraft Systems. 

by Karen Quackenbush

On November 7, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) announced the availability of a Gaps Progress Report. A copy of the announcement is posted below.

Gaps Progress Report Available: ANSI UASSC Standardization Roadmap 2.0 for Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) announced today the availability of a Gaps Progress Report, a vital document capturing key standardization progress and opportunities for the rapidly evolving unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) industry. The report tracks collective efforts by standards developing organizations (SDOs) and others to address the 71 gaps identified in the Standardization Roadmap for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Version 2.0, June 2020), published by the ANSI Unmanned Aircraft Systems Standardization Collaborative (UASSC).

The Gaps Progress Report was compiled by ANSI staff based on inputs from SDOs, subject matter experts, and independent research. It lists newly published standards and new standards projects, alongside suggestions for future roadmap modifications. The report is not a consensus document, but rather is intended to serve as an interim "living document" that will be maintained and periodically re-published until such time as the UASSC develops a next version of the standardization roadmap.

The UASSC was formed in 2017 to coordinate and accelerate the development of the standards and related conformance programs needed to facilitate the safe integration of UAS into the national airspace system of the United States. More than 400 individuals from 250 public- and private-sector organizations supported the standardization roadmap, including representatives of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), other U.S. federal government agencies, SDOs, industry, and academia.

ANSI's facilitation of the UASSC is supported in part by contributions from the FAA. To be added to the UASSC's mailing list, or to offer suggested edits to the Gaps Progress Report, email uassc@ansi.org. For more information, visit www.ansi.org/uassc.

Hydrogen Europe Discusses Expectations for New European Union’s Hydrogen Legislation

by Aidan Dennehy

On September 19, Hydrogen Europe hosted a webinar on the European Union’s (EU’s) upcoming Low Carbon Hydrogen Delegated Act (LCHDA). The webinar was hosted by Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (CEO, Hydrogen Europe) who presented his organizations view on the LCHDA. Daniel Fraile (Chief Policy and Market Officer, Hydrogen Europe) followed up with a brief presentation on how different hydrogen production pathways will contribute to Europe’s decarbonization goals. Chatzimarkakis then led a panel discussion on the LCHDA with Kitty Nyitrai, (Head of Unit, EU Decarbonisation and Sustainability of Energy Sources), Christelle Rouillé (CEO, Hynamics), Sebastien Boden (Vice President, Air Liquide Hydrogen Energy Partnerships), Matti Malkamäki (Chairman of the board, Hycamite), and Daniel Fraile, Chief Policy and Market Officer, Hydrogen Europe).

The LCHDA will define the methodology for hydrogen production to qualify as low-carbon and benefit from the Decarbonized Gas & Hydrogen Package which entered into force in August of this year. The package directed the European Commission to develop the LCHDA before August of 2025. A first draft of the Act will be published in the coming weeks for public consultation, after which a modified version will be reviewed by the European Commission and Parliament. The Commission and Parliament will then have two months, with the possibility of a two-month extension, to accept or reject it.

One of the key concerns expressed by several speakers was how hydrogen leakage will factor into the lifecycle assessment of hydrogen production. Kitty Nyitrai highlighted that the lack of an agreed Global Warming Potential (GWP) for hydrogen and the relatively limited experience regulators have with hydrogen when compared to methane make it a tricky consideration. Christelle Rouillé discussed how Hynamics can help address this problem. Hynamics`s new methane-splitting hydrogen production technology produces hydrogen without the use of oxygen. The lack of oxygen prevents carbon dioxide from forming, and therefore any leakage. Here, concerns about the climate and safety overlap. Developing technology to detect and prevent leaks will reduce the negative environmental impacts of hydrogen while ensuring it is as safe as possible.

To access a recording of the full presentation, click HERE.

U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Joins the Center for Hydrogen Safety

by Aidan Dennehy

On October 8, the Center for Hydrogen Safety (CHS) announced that U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will become a strategic partner to the Center. The partnership will better equip CHS and PHMSA in their shared mission of advancing hydrogen safety actions and ideas across the globe.

PHMSA is one of the largest regulatory agencies in the country. Its scope encompasses more than 3.3 million miles of regulated domestic pipelines, 1.2 million daily shipments of hazardous materials, and 1.6 billion tons of hazardous materials shipped annually across all modes of transport. Since 2021, it has invested more than $11 million in research projects which aim to improve the safety of hydrogen storage and transportation. Their contribution to CHS will be substantial. As CHS Executive Director Nick Barilo put it: “their strategic approach to hazardous material transportation safety is broadly recognized and valued”.

Under the partnership, PHMSA and CHS will share expertise and coordinate efforts on hydrogen storage and transportation safety initiatives. CHS represents over 120 organizations working collaboratively to advance the safe handling and storage of hydrogen and serves as a common global platform to facilitate the sharing of hydrogen safety information, guidance, and expertise.

PHMSA followed the Department of Energy (DOE) to become the second federal agency to join CHS. This collaboration will advance the Hydrogen Interagency Taskforce (HIT) goal of fully leveraging federal agency capabilities while implementing the national clean hydrogen strategy.

To read the full press release from CHS, click HERE.

Center for Hydrogen Safety Hosts Webinar on Large Electrolyzer Projects

by Aidan Dennehy

On November 19, the Center for Hydrogen Safety (CHS) hosted the webinar “Hydrogen Safety for Large Electrolyzer Projects”. The event was presented by Nick Barilo (Executive Director, Center for Hydrogen Safety), Tim Gardner (Director of Technology, Mitsubishi Power), and Dr. Danielle Murphy (Principal Engineer and Hydrogen Services Lead, WHA International). CHS is non-profit which represents over 120 private and public organizations. It's mission is to provide guidance and create collaborative forums to promote hydrogen safety. Over the course of an hour and half, the event covered a variety of safety topics relevant to large electrolyzer projects.

The presentation began with a description of the current hydrogen safety landscape. While there is currently no prescriptive code for safety in large-scale electrolyzer installations, there are several codes and standards which are relevant. For example, National Fire Protection Association NFPA 2 only applies to installed hydrogen generation systems that produce up to 100kg/hr of hydrogen; whereas even a 1 MW electrolyzer system produces 18 kg/hr. Other relevant codes and standards include ISO 22734, CSA/ANSI B22734, DFPA 70, ASME B31.3, HGV 4.10. Regarding cultivating a strong safety culture, the presenters emphasized leveraging best practices from mature industries with strong safety cultures such as Nuclear. They cited the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Principles for a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture as a guiding document.

Moving to current safety challenges and how to apply previous lessons, the presentation covered topics ranging from ventilation to electrical classification. When it comes to ventilation, the presenters stressed that considering the worst-case scenario is crucial. This way, ventilation systems can be designed to be effective in the unlikely case of an emergency. Based on current knowledge, the Gardner and Murphy recommended placing local ventilation adjacent to hydrogen equipment to reduce the need for large building systems and resolve spatial concerns. The large size of the electrolyzer projects focused on in this presentation have implications for optimizing leak detection. For example, point detectors become less reliable in large open-air spaces because the hydrogen must pass by the detector. Other methods, such as acoustic detectors, are reliable but are unable to isolate the location of the leak. The presenters recommend a combination of detection methods and the establishment of “leak zones” so that any issues can be pin pointed. The presenters also discussed how electrical classification, Distributed Control System (DCS) and Safety Instrumented System (SIS) architecture and planning, personnel, and design considerations can be adjusted from a safety perspective for large electrolyzer projects to optimize safety performance.

The presentation concluded with a Q&A session where the audience had an opportunity to ask their own questions. To learn more about the event or purchase a recording, click HERE.

November 2024

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Safety

Sign up for the Safety Report

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Codes and Standards Events

Technical Resources

Codes and Standards Overview

Permitting Hydrogen Technologies