A benchmarking exercise on quantitative risk assessment (QRA) methodologies has been conducted within the project HyQRA, under the framework of the European Network of Excellence (NoE), HySafe. The aim of the exercise was basically twofold: (i) to identify the differences and similarities in approaches in a QRA and their results for a hydrogen installation, between nine participating partners representing a broad spectrum of background in QRA culture and history, and (ii) to identify knowledge gaps in the various steps and parameters underlying the risk quantification.
In the first step, a reference case was defined: a virtual hydrogen refuelling station (HRS) in virtual surroundings comprising housing, school, shops and other vulnerable objects. All partners were requested to conduct a QRA according to their usual approach and experience. Basically, participants were free to define representative release cases, to apply models and frequency assessments according their own methodology, and to present risk according to their usual format. To enable inter-comparison, a required set of results data was prescribed, like distances to specific thermal radiation levels from fires anddistances to specific overpressure levels. Moreover, complete documentation of assumptions, base data and references was to be reported.
It was not surprising that a wide range of results was obtained, both in the applied approaches as well as in the quantitative outcomes and conclusions. This made it difficult to identify exactly which assumptions and parameters were responsible for the differences in results, as the paper will show. A second phase was defined in which the QRA was determined by a more limited number of release cases (scenarios). The partners in the project agreed to assess specific scenarios in order to identify the differences in consequence assessment approaches. The results of this phase provide a better understanding of the influence of modelling assumptions and limitations on the eventual conclusions with regard to risk to on-site people and to the off-site public.
This paper presents the results and conclusions of both stages of the exercise.