The Hydrogen Safety Panel was tasked with conducting work under the project “Hydrogen Safety Panel Review of Department of Energy’s Fuel Cell Projects,” through memorandum purchase order DCO-0-40618-01 with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding.  Panel members reviewed project safety plans, conducted safety review site visits for selected projects, and prepared safety evaluation reports for the sites visited that included safety recommendations for the project teams.

It has been suggested that separation or safety distances for pressurised hydrogen storage can be reduced by the inclusion of walls or barriers between the hydrogen storage and vulnerable plant or other items. Various NFPA codes [1] suggest the use of 60
inclined fire barriers for protection against jet flames in preference to vertical ones. Work by Sandia National Laboratories [2] included experiments and modeling aimed at characterisation of the effectiveness of barrier walls at reducing hazards.

In developing a 70 megapascal (MPa) fueling infrastructure, it is critical to ensure that a vehicle equipped with a lower service pressure fuel tank is never filled from a 70 MPa fueling source. Filling of a lower service pressure vehicle at a 70 MPa fueling source is likely to result in a catastrophic event with severe injuries or fatalities. The Hydrogen Safety Panel recommends that DOE undertake a two‐step process to address this issue.

The broad use of hydrogen as an energy carrier to tackle the issue of climate change is unavoidable. The emerging hydrogen economy poses new problems to be solved to ensure a level of safety in hydrogen technologies and infrastructure comparable to that for today’s fossil fuels. The pressure of onboard hydrogen storage in early-market

Quenching limits of hydrogen diffusion flames on small burners were observed. Four burner types,with diameters as small as 8 m, were considered: pinhole burners, curved-wall pinhole burners, tubeburners, and leaky fittings. In terms of mass flow rate, hydrogen had a lower quenching limit and a higherblowoff limit than either methane or propane. Hydrogen flames at their quenching limits were the weakest

Sodium chloride and four or five other particulate materials have been used successfully as fire suppression agents for specific combustible metal fires. The certification testing and National Fire Protection Association recommendations for using these suppression agents are summarized here. The sodium chloride based agent and ordinary sand have also been used in some sodium hydride fires, and in a sodium hydride fire test series.

The Baker-Strehlow-Tang vapor cloud explosion (VCE) blast load prediction methodology utilizes flame speed as a measure of explosion severity. In previous publications, guidance has been presented for selecting flame speeds as a function of congestion, confinement, and fuel reactivity. These recommended values were based on empirical data available from the literature.

This document and its companion document, Safety Standard for Oxygen and Oxygen Systems (NSS1740.151996),are identified as Tier 2 Standards and Technical Requirements in the NASA Safety and Documentation Tree (NHB 1700.1 1993). The information presented is intended as a reference to hydrogen design and practice and not as an authorizing document. The words "shall" and "must" are used in this document to indicate a mandatory requirement, and the authority for the requirement is given.

Video of how cryogenic system work.  Especially for LH2 for HSP