A Comprehensive Safety Framework for the Hydrogen and Natural Gas Economies: From Production to Public Engagement
A Comprehensive Safety Framework for the Hydrogen and Natural Gas Economies: From Production to Public Engagement
Executive Summary
As the global energy landscape evolves, hydrogen is emerging as a critical energy carrier alongside established resources like natural gas. While both are flammable gases, their unique physicochemical properties necessitate distinct and nuanced safety protocols. This report provides an exhaustive, expert-level analysis of the safety frameworks governing the entire value chain for both hydrogen and natural gas, from production and transportation to end-use and emergency response.
A comparative analysis reveals that hydrogen's safety profile is uniquely context-dependent. Its extreme buoyancy and low radiant heat from flames are significant safety advantages in open-air releases compared to hydrocarbons. However, its exceptionally wide flammability range, low minimum ignition energy, and nearly invisible flame present heightened risks, particularly in confined or semi-confined environments. This reality mandates a shift in safety design, prioritizing engineering controls like robust ventilation and outdoor siting. Furthermore, the inability to odorize hydrogen effectively necessitates a fundamental transition from human-centric leak detection (smell) to a complete reliance on advanced, reliable sensor technologies.
Robust safety is built upon a dual foundation: a systematic management framework and a proactive organizational culture. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) standard provides the essential 14-element structure for managing highly hazardous chemicals. Yet, its effectiveness is entirely dependent on a deeply embedded safety culture characterized by visible leadership commitment, employee empowerment, and a continuous learning environment that treats every near-miss as a critical data point.
The regulatory landscape is similarly bifurcated, with a mature, well-established system for natural gas (governed by PHMSA and standards like ASME B31.8) and a rapidly evolving framework for hydrogen (led by NFPA 2 and ASME B31.12). The industry's primary challenge is the safe integration of hydrogen into existing infrastructure, which requires addressing significant technical hurdles like hydrogen embrittlement in steel pipelines and developing new codes for emerging applications, such as offshore transport.
Analysis of historical incidents—from the San Bruno pipeline rupture to the Muskingum River power plant explosion—reveals that catastrophic failures are rarely the result of a single technical fault. Instead, they represent a systemic breakdown across multiple layers of defense, often rooted in inadequate record-keeping, flawed Management of Change, and an organizational culture that fails to learn from past mistakes.
Ultimately, ensuring public safety and fostering acceptance of these energy systems depends on comprehensive emergency preparedness and transparent communication. This includes specialized training for first responders on the counter-intuitive tactics required for hydrogen incidents and the development of clear, accurate, and accessible public communication strategies guided by federal agencies like FEMA. This report synthesizes these multifaceted considerations into a cohesive framework for managing risk across the modern gas energy economy.
Section 1: Fundamental Safety Considerations and Best Practices
A thorough understanding of the safety protocols for hydrogen and natural gas must begin with a foundational analysis of their distinct physicochemical properties. These inherent characteristics dictate the nature of the hazards they present and inform the engineering and administrative controls required to manage them safely. This section provides a comparative analysis of these properties, outlines the primary risks, introduces the guiding philosophy of the Hierarchy of Controls, and synthesizes best practices for handling and storage.
1.1 Comparative Physicochemical Properties of Hydrogen and Natural Gas
While both are flammable gases, the differences between hydrogen and natural gas (which is comprised of approximately 90% methane) are profound and have direct, critical implications for safety system design, material selection, and emergency response procedures.
Molecular Structure, Size, and Density The most fundamental difference lies at the atomic level. Hydrogen (H_2) is the first element on the periodic table, making it the lightest and smallest molecule in existence. Methane (CH_4), the primary component of natural gas, is a compound of carbon and hydrogen and is significantly larger and heavier. This size difference is the primary reason hydrogen has a greater propensity to leak through gaskets, seals, and even the matrix of some solid materials that can effectively contain natural gas.
This disparity in mass also leads to a significant difference in density and buoyancy. Gaseous hydrogen has a relative vapor density of approximately 0.07 compared to air (where air = 1), making it extremely buoyant. If released in an open environment, it rises and disperses with remarkable speed, a characteristic that serves as a major safety advantage by quickly reducing concentrations below flammable limits. Natural gas is also lighter than air, with a relative density of about 0.6, but it is far less buoyant than hydrogen. In contrast, other common fuels like propane or gasoline vapor are heavier than air and can accumulate in low-lying areas, creating a persistent hazard. The high buoyancy of hydrogen is a defining feature that dictates safety strategies, mandating that ventilation systems be designed for upward extraction and that leak detectors be placed at the highest points of an enclosure.
Flammability and Combustion Characteristics The behavior of hydrogen and natural gas during combustion differs in several critical ways, as summarized in Table 1.
Flammability and Explosive Limits: Hydrogen is flammable in air over an exceptionally wide range of concentrations: from 4% to 75% by volume. Natural gas has a much narrower flammability range of approximately 5% to 15%. This means that a hydrogen leak can create an ignitable mixture under both very lean (low fuel concentration) and very rich (high fuel concentration) conditions, making combustion control more difficult. Similarly, hydrogen's explosive limits in air (18.3% to 59%) are wider than those of natural gas (5.7% to 14%).
Minimum Ignition Energy: Hydrogen requires extraordinarily little energy to ignite under optimal conditions—just 0.02 millijoules (mJ), which is an order of magnitude less than the 0.29 mJ required for natural gas. This means that a source of ignition that would be insufficient to ignite natural gas, such as a low-energy electrostatic discharge from a person walking across a carpet, can easily ignite a flammable hydrogen-air mixture.
Flame Properties: The flames produced by the two gases are markedly different.
Visibility and Radiant Heat: A pure hydrogen fire is nearly invisible to the naked eye in daylight, creating a significant risk of accidental contact for personnel and first responders. This necessitates the use of thermal imaging cameras or other detection methods, such as holding a broom handle out to detect a flame. However, a key safety advantage of hydrogen flames is their low emissivity. They radiate significantly less heat than hydrocarbon fires, which reduces the risk of igniting secondary fires in adjacent materials and lessens the danger of severe radiant heat burns to people nearby.
Temperature and Speed: Hydrogen has a higher adiabatic flame temperature than natural gas (approximately 500 °F hotter), which must be considered in the selection of materials for combustion equipment. This higher temperature can also lead to an increase in the formation of nitrogen oxides (NO_x), a regulated pollutant, although this can be mitigated through burner design and emissions controls. Furthermore, hydrogen's flame speed is nearly ten times that of methane, which makes combustion more difficult to control and increases the risk of "flashback," where the flame travels back into the burner equipment.
Energy Density A final critical distinction is energy density. On a mass basis (gravimetric), hydrogen is the most energy-dense fuel, containing roughly 2.5 times the energy of natural gas per pound. However, because it is the lightest gas, its energy density by volume (volumetric) is very low. To store a useful amount of energy, hydrogen must either be compressed to very high pressures (e.g., 5,000 to 10,000 psi in vehicles) or cryogenically liquefied at an extremely low temperature of -423°F (-253°C). This necessity introduces high-pressure and cryogenic hazards that are less extreme in typical natural gas systems. For example, compressed natural gas (CNG) is typically stored around 3,600 psi.
1.2 Inherent Hazards and Risk Profiles
The distinct properties of hydrogen and natural gas translate directly into specific hazard profiles, which are formally documented in Safety Data Sheets (SDS). These documents provide a standardized summary of the risks associated with a chemical.
Hydrogen Hazards The primary hazards associated with hydrogen are:
Extreme Flammability: Classified as a Category 1 Flammable Gas, its principal hazard is unwanted combustion. The hazard statement is H220: "Extremely flammable gas".
Pressure Hazard: As a compressed gas, it poses a significant pressure hazard. The hazard statement is H280: "Contains gas under pressure; may explode if heated". This risk is amplified by the very high pressures used for hydrogen storage.
Asphyxiation: Like any gas other than oxygen, hydrogen can displace breathable air in a confined space, leading to rapid suffocation. It is classified as a "Simple Asphyxiant". While its buoyancy makes this less likely in many scenarios, it remains a critical risk in enclosed or poorly ventilated areas.
Cryogenic Hazard (Liquid Hydrogen): In its liquid state (LH2), hydrogen is maintained at -423°F (-253°C). Contact with this cryogenic liquid or its cold vapors can cause severe frostbite and tissue damage. The rapid expansion from liquid to gas (a volume ratio of 1:848) can also cause rapid pressure increases in sealed systems.
Material Embrittlement: Hydrogen can diffuse into the structure of certain metals, particularly high-strength steels, reducing their ductility and making them brittle. This phenomenon, known as hydrogen embrittlement, can lead to unexpected, catastrophic material failure.
Natural Gas Hazards The hazards of natural gas are characteristic of hydrocarbon fuels:
Flammability: Natural gas is also a Category 1 Flammable Gas and presents a significant fire and explosion hazard.
Pressure Hazard: It is stored and transported as a gas under pressure and may explode if heated.
Asphyxiation: It is also a simple asphyxiant that can displace oxygen.
Toxicity of Associated Components: While purified natural gas (methane) is non-toxic, "sour gas" from a well can contain highly toxic hydrogen sulfide (H_2S). Additionally, incomplete combustion of natural gas can produce lethal quantities of carbon monoxide (CO).
Detection Challenges and the Role of Odorants A critical difference in the risk profiles of the two gases is detectability. Both gases are colorless, odorless, and tasteless in their pure states. For decades, the natural gas industry has mitigated this risk by adding a strong-smelling odorant, typically mercaptan, to distribution gas. This gives it a characteristic "rotten egg" smell, turning the human nose into an effective and ubiquitous leak detector. This administrative control has been a cornerstone of public safety for natural gas.
This approach is not currently viable for hydrogen. No known odorant is light enough to disperse at the same rate as hydrogen, meaning the smell could lag far behind the flammable cloud. Furthermore, common sulfur-based odorants act as a poison to fuel cells, a key end-use application for high-purity hydrogen. This absence of an effective odorant fundamentally shifts the safety paradigm for hydrogen away from human-centric detection to a complete reliance on engineered solutions, namely electronic sensors and detectors. This places a much greater emphasis on the reliability, placement, and maintenance of these technological systems.
1.3 The Hierarchy of Controls in Gas Operations
To manage the hazards identified above, the modern safety science community employs a systematic framework known as the Hierarchy of Controls. This framework, promoted by agencies like OSHA and NIOSH, prioritizes risk-reduction strategies from most to least effective. It is a foundational principle for designing inherently safer systems, as it focuses on eliminating hazards at their source rather than relying on human behavior or personal protective equipment (PPE) as the primary line of defense.
The hierarchy is typically visualized as an inverted pyramid, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The NIOSH Hierarchy of Controls. This framework ranks hazard control strategies from most to least effective, prioritizing the elimination of hazards over reliance on protective equipment.
The application of this hierarchy is critical in managing the risks of flammable gases:
Elimination: The most effective control is to physically remove the hazard. While it is not always possible to eliminate the use of hydrogen or natural gas entirely, this principle can be applied to specific tasks. For example, performing maintenance work at ground level eliminates the fall hazard associated with working on top of storage tanks.
Substitution: The second-most effective control is to replace a hazard with a less hazardous alternative. An example would be using a non-flammable cleaning solvent on equipment instead of a flammable one. In a broader sense, the transition to green hydrogen is a form of substitution aimed at replacing the greenhouse gas emissions of natural gas, though this introduces the unique safety challenges of hydrogen that must be managed.
Engineering Controls: These are physical changes to the workplace that isolate people from the hazard. This is the most important and reliable layer of protection for handling flammable gases, as it does not rely on human action. Key examples include:
Ventilation: For hydrogen, this is the paramount engineering control. Designing systems for outdoor installation leverages its natural buoyancy to dissipate leaks safely. For indoor applications, robust mechanical ventilation systems with high air exchange rates are essential.
Enclosure and Isolation: Placing hazardous processes within dedicated, controlled enclosures or operating them remotely separates workers from the risk.
Inherently Safe Equipment: Using explosion-proof electrical equipment (lighting, motors, switches) and intrinsically safe instrumentation in areas where a flammable atmosphere could form prevents ignition sources. The use of non-sparking tools is another example.
Pressure Management: Automatic pressure relief valves and rupture disks are critical engineering controls that prevent equipment from exceeding its safe operating pressure.
Administrative Controls: These are changes to work policies and procedures that reduce exposure. They are less effective than engineering controls because they rely on human behavior. Examples include:
Safe Work Procedures: Developing and enforcing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) procedures for energy isolation, and a formal Hot Work Permit system for any activity that could create an ignition source.
Training: Comprehensive training programs that cover the specific hazards of the gas being handled, safe work practices, and emergency response actions.
Warning Systems: Installing alarms, warning signs, and clear labels on containers and in hazardous areas.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): This is the last line of defense and is used to protect the worker when higher-level controls cannot eliminate the risk entirely. It is considered the least effective control because its efficacy depends on proper selection, fit, maintenance, and consistent use by the worker. For gas handling, required PPE typically includes safety glasses, flame-retardant clothing, and anti-static safety shoes. For specific tasks like handling liquid hydrogen, specialized cryogenic gloves and face shields are required.
1.4 Best Practices in Handling and Storage
The practical application of these safety principles is detailed in Safety Data Sheets. A synthesis of this information provides a clear set of best practices for the day-to-day handling of compressed hydrogen and natural gas.
General Handling: All equipment, including regulators and piping, must be rated for the maximum cylinder pressure. Cylinders must be protected from physical damage; they should never be dragged, rolled, or dropped and should be moved using a suitable hand truck or trolley. To prevent static electricity buildup, which can be an ignition source, containers and receiving equipment must be grounded and bonded during product transfer. Only non-sparking tools should be used in areas where a gas leak is possible.
Storage: Cylinders must be stored in a cool, dry, well-ventilated area, away from direct sunlight, heat, and incompatible materials like strong oxidizers. They should always be stored upright and firmly secured to prevent falling or being knocked over. Valve protection caps must remain in place until the cylinder is secured and ready for use. Storage areas must be clearly marked with permanent placards warning against smoking and open flames. Regulations also specify minimum separation distances between hydrogen storage systems and other structures, property lines, and potential ignition sources.
Leak Response: A critical and counter-intuitive rule for responding to a leaking gas fire is to not extinguish the flame unless the source of the leak can be safely and immediately shut off. Extinguishing the flame without stopping the leak allows a flammable and potentially explosive gas cloud to form, which often presents a greater hazard than the fire itself. The correct emergency response is to stop the flow of gas, eliminate all other ignition sources in the area, and allow the fire to burn out.
Section 2: Process Safety Management and a Proactive Safety Culture
While understanding the physical hazards of hydrogen and natural gas is the first step, preventing catastrophic incidents requires more than just knowledge of chemistry and physics. It demands a systematic, disciplined approach to managing complex industrial processes and, just as importantly, a deeply ingrained organizational culture that prioritizes safety above all else. This section explores the two pillars of this approach: the formal structure of Process Safety Management (PSM) and the human element of a robust safety culture.
2.1 The OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard (29 CFR 1910.119)
In response to a series of devastating industrial accidents, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated the Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) standard. Its purpose is to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals. The standard applies to any process that involves a highly hazardous chemical at or above specified threshold quantities, which includes flammable gases like hydrogen and natural gas in large quantities.
PSM is not a simple checklist but a comprehensive management program that integrates technology, procedures, and management practices. The standard is performance-based, meaning it defines the required safety outcomes but allows facilities flexibility in how they achieve them. It is built upon 14 distinct but interconnected elements, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: The 14 Elements of OSHA's Process Safety Management. These elements form an integrated system for managing the risks associated with highly hazardous chemicals.
A detailed breakdown of these elements reveals a systematic approach to risk control:
Employee Participation: Requires employers to develop a written plan for involving employees in the development and conduct of all PSM elements, ensuring that the expertise of frontline workers is incorporated into the safety program.
Process Safety Information (PSI): Mandates the compilation of complete and accurate written information on the hazards of the chemicals, the technology of the process, and the equipment used before any hazard analysis is conducted. This forms the technical foundation for understanding and managing risk.
Process Hazard Analysis (PHA): A cornerstone of PSM, the PHA is a systematic team effort to identify and evaluate potential hazards of the process. Methodologies like Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP) or What-If/Checklist analyses are used to scrutinize the process and recommend risk-reduction measures. PHAs must be updated and revalidated at least every five years.
Operating Procedures: Requires the development of clear, written instructions for all phases of operation, including startup, normal operation, temporary operations, and emergency and normal shutdowns. These procedures must be readily accessible to employees.
Training: Ensures that every employee operating a process receives effective initial and refresher training (at least every three years) on the specific operating procedures, safety hazards, and emergency actions.
Contractors: Places responsibility on the host employer to ensure that contract workers are properly trained and informed of all site-specific hazards, and that the contract employer has an adequate safety program.
Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR): A formal safety review required for new facilities and for modified facilities before any highly hazardous chemical is introduced. The PSSR confirms that construction meets design specifications, procedures are in place, and training is complete.
Mechanical Integrity (MI): A comprehensive program to ensure the ongoing integrity of critical process equipment, including pressure vessels, piping, relief systems, and controls. It requires written procedures, training for maintenance personnel, and a robust inspection and testing program.
Hot Work Permit: Mandates a formal permit system for any welding, cutting, grinding, or other spark-producing operations conducted on or near a covered process.
Management of Change (MOC): A critical element that requires a formal, written procedure to manage any changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, or procedures. The MOC process must evaluate the technical basis for the change, its impact on safety, and ensure all affected documentation (like PSI and operating procedures) is updated.
Incident Investigation: Requires every incident that resulted in, or could have reasonably resulted in, a catastrophic release to be investigated by a team within 48 hours. The goal is to identify root causes and implement corrective actions to prevent recurrence.
Emergency Planning and Response: Mandates the establishment of an emergency action plan to handle potential incidents, in accordance with other OSHA regulations.
Compliance Audits: Requires a self-audit at least every three years to certify that the facility is in compliance with all provisions of the PSM standard and that the procedures are adequate and being followed.
Trade Secrets: Ensures that no information concerning trade secrets can be withheld from personnel involved in any aspect of the PSM program, from compiling PSI to conducting incident investigations.
These 14 elements do not function as a simple checklist but as a web of interlocking defenses. A failure in one element, such as MOC, can create a cascade of failures across the entire system. For instance, an undocumented change to a piece of equipment invalidates the Process Safety Information, which in turn renders the Process Hazard Analysis obsolete and makes the Operating Procedures incorrect. This domino effect demonstrates that the strength of a PSM program is determined by its weakest link, requiring a holistic and integrated approach to implementation and auditing.
2.2 Cultivating a Robust Safety Culture
While PSM provides the formal structure for safety, its successful implementation depends on the organization's safety culture—the shared values, beliefs, and behaviors that determine how safety is managed in practice. In high-hazard industries like oil and gas, a strong safety culture is not a "soft" initiative but a primary defense against catastrophic failure. Its defining characteristics include:
Visible Leadership Commitment: Safety must begin at the top. When senior leadership consistently demonstrates that safety is a core value—through their words, actions, resource allocation, and decisions—it sets the tone for the entire organization. This commitment must be visible and unwavering, especially when faced with production pressures.
Employee Involvement and Empowerment: A strong safety culture involves every employee, not just a safety department. Workers on the front lines have invaluable expertise and must be actively involved in safety initiatives, from hazard analysis to procedure development. Crucially, they must feel empowered to report unsafe conditions or stop a job they believe is unsafe without any fear of retaliation.
Open Communication and a Learning Environment: The organization must foster an environment of psychological safety where employees feel comfortable reporting errors, near misses, and safety concerns. These reports should be treated not as failures to be punished but as invaluable opportunities for learning and improvement. A robust near-miss reporting system is a hallmark of a mature safety culture, as it allows the organization to identify and correct weaknesses before they lead to a major incident.
Continuous Improvement: A strong safety culture is never complacent. It is a "learning organization" that constantly seeks to improve its processes based on audits, incident investigations, near-miss reports, and industry best practices.
2.3 Integrating PSM and Safety Culture: The Symbiotic Relationship
Process Safety Management and safety culture are inextricably linked. PSM provides the essential, systematic framework—the "what" and "how" of safety management. Safety culture provides the "why"—the underlying commitment and behaviors that bring the framework to life.
A PSM program, no matter how well-written, will fail if the underlying culture is poor. For example, a facility can have a perfect MOC procedure on paper, but if the culture encourages undocumented "temporary" changes to meet production goals, the procedure is worthless. Similarly, an incident investigation process is ineffective if a culture of blame discourages honest reporting of what actually happened.
Conversely, good intentions are not enough. A strong safety culture needs the structure and discipline of a PSM program to translate its values into effective, repeatable, and auditable actions. PSM provides the tools—like PHA and MOC—that enable a culture of safety to be implemented systematically.
In this sense, the state of an organization's safety culture can be seen as a leading indicator of its safety performance. While compliance audits are lagging indicators that review past performance, cultural indicators—such as the quality of safety conversations, the rate of near-miss reporting, and the way leadership responds to bad news—can predict how the formal PSM system will perform under stress. Therefore, actively measuring and nurturing a positive safety culture is one of the most effective proactive risk management strategies an organization can undertake.
Section 3: The Regulatory Landscape: Codes and Standards
The safe production, transport, and use of hydrogen and natural gas are governed by a complex, multi-layered framework of regulations, codes, and standards (RCS). This framework is established by government agencies that set mandatory rules and by consensus-based standards development organizations (SDOs) that create detailed technical guidelines often adopted into law. Navigating this landscape is essential for ensuring compliance and implementing best practices.
3.1 Key U.S. Regulatory Bodies
Two federal agencies form the primary pillars of gas safety regulation in the United States:
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA): An agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA is the principal authority for the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous materials. Its Office of Pipeline Safety has jurisdiction over the nation's vast network of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, enforcing safety regulations for their design, construction, operation, and maintenance. These regulations are codified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 190-199. Foundational legislation, such as the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, provides PHMSA its authority. In recent years, PHMSA has enacted significant updates, known as the "Mega Rule," to strengthen requirements for pipeline integrity management, material verification, and to expand its oversight of previously unregulated gas gathering lines.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): An agency within the U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA's mission is to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for employees. OSHA's authority covers the workplace itself, including chemical plants, refineries, and industrial facilities that produce, store, or use hydrogen and natural gas. Its most critical regulations for this sector are the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard (29 CFR 1910.119) and the specific standard for Hydrogen systems (29 CFR 1910.103).
3.2 Foundational Codes from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
The NFPA is a global SDO that develops consensus codes and standards to minimize the risk of fire and other hazards. Its codes are widely adopted by state and local jurisdictions and form the basis of fire safety regulation across the country.
NFPA 2, Hydrogen Technologies Code: This is the most comprehensive and critical code for hydrogen safety. It provides fundamental safeguards for the entire hydrogen lifecycle, including generation, installation, storage, piping, and use of both compressed gaseous hydrogen (GH2) and cryogenic liquid hydrogen (LH2). It addresses a wide range of applications, from industrial systems to vehicular fueling stations, and covers topics like setback distances, ventilation requirements, and explosion control.
NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code: This code is the primary standard for the installation of natural gas piping and appliances downstream of the utility meter, such as in residential and commercial buildings. It is the foundational document for safe natural gas use in end-use applications.
NFPA 55, Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids Code: This standard provides general requirements for the storage, use, and handling of all compressed gases and cryogenic fluids. It contains provisions that are applicable to both hydrogen and liquefied natural gas (LNG).
NFPA 704, Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials: This standard establishes the well-known "fire diamond" placard used to quickly communicate the hazards of a material to emergency responders. On this scale of 0 to 4, hydrogen is rated as a 4 for Flammability (the highest risk), but 0 for Health and 0 for Instability, concisely summarizing its primary hazard profile.
3.3 Engineering and Pipeline Standards from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
ASME is a leading SDO that develops codes and standards for mechanical engineering disciplines. Its B31 codes for pressure piping are the definitive standards for pipeline design and construction in the U.S.
ASME B31.12, Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines: This is the specific standard dedicated to hydrogen infrastructure. It contains detailed requirements for materials, design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance of both industrial piping and long-distance pipelines for gaseous and liquid hydrogen service. A key focus of this code is addressing the unique material challenges posed by hydrogen, such as embrittlement. The industry is currently working to integrate the requirements of B31.12 into the more established B31.3 and B31.8 codes, after which B31.12 may be retired, signaling a move toward a more unified piping code framework.
ASME B31.8, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems: This is the foundational ASME standard for natural gas pipelines, covering everything from high-pressure transmission lines to low-pressure local distribution networks.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC): This comprehensive code provides the rules for the design and construction of boilers and pressure vessels. It is directly relevant to the safety of gas storage tanks and other pressurized equipment, and includes specific provisions that address hydrogen electrolyzer stack assemblies.
3.4 International and Industry-Specific Standards
The regulatory landscape is also shaped by global and specialized organizations:
International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO develops standards that facilitate international trade and harmonization. For hydrogen, key standards include ISO 19885-1, which defines protocols for hydrogen fueling stations, and ISO 26142, which sets performance requirements for hydrogen sensors.
Compressed Gas Association (CGA): The CGA is an industry trade association that develops widely recognized safety standards for the production, storage, transport, and handling of industrial gases. Its standard CGA G-5.6 is a harmonized international standard for hydrogen pipeline systems.
International Code Council (ICC): The ICC develops a suite of comprehensive building safety codes, known as the I-Codes, which are used throughout the U.S. The International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) is a key part of this suite, and the ICC is actively developing proposals to update its codes to safely address the blending of hydrogen into existing natural gas infrastructure.
The current regulatory environment reflects a tale of two systems. For natural gas, there is a mature, deeply embedded framework of codes and regulations built over many decades. For hydrogen, the framework is newer and evolving rapidly to keep pace with technology and deployment. A central challenge for regulators and SDOs is the harmonization of these two systems, particularly in developing safe and practical standards for blending hydrogen into the existing natural gas grid. This work requires extensive research to close knowledge gaps, such as the long-term effects of hydrogen blends on various pipeline materials and end-use appliances. A significant gap also exists in the realm of offshore hydrogen transport; while onshore pipelines are well-covered, there is currently no dedicated code for offshore hydrogen pipelines, a critical need for the future development of large-scale green hydrogen projects powered by offshore wind.
Section 4: Safety in Production: Focus on Electrolysis
The production of hydrogen is the first step in its value chain, and the safety of this process is paramount. While the dominant method today is steam methane reforming (SMR), which has its own set of process safety challenges related to high temperatures and pressures, the focus of the burgeoning green hydrogen economy is on water electrolysis. This process uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and while it avoids the carbon emissions of SMR, it introduces its own unique safety considerations centered on the simultaneous production of a flammable gas and a powerful oxidizer.
4.1 Electrolyzer Technology and Safety Principles
Electrolyzers are electrochemical devices composed of an anode and a cathode separated by an electrolyte. The fundamental safety principle in their design and operation is to ensure the robust and continuous separation of the hydrogen product gas from the oxygen byproduct. The mixing of these two gases can create a highly explosive atmosphere, making gas purity and separation the most critical safety concern. The two leading electrolysis technologies, Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) and Alkaline, achieve this separation in different ways.
Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Electrolyzers PEM electrolyzers represent a more modern technology that offers high efficiency and flexibility.
Mechanism: In a PEM electrolyzer, the electrolyte is a solid polymer membrane that is permeable to protons (H^+) but not to gases like hydrogen or oxygen. Water is supplied to the anode, where a catalyst splits it into oxygen gas, electrons, and protons. The protons migrate through the solid membrane to the cathode, while the electrons travel through an external circuit. At the cathode, the protons and electrons recombine with the help of a catalyst to form pure hydrogen gas.
Inherent Safety Features: The solid polymer membrane is a key inherent safety feature. By providing a solid, physical barrier between the anode and cathode, it dramatically reduces the potential for the product hydrogen and oxygen to mix. This low gas crossover rate results in very high-purity hydrogen directly from the cell, minimizing the risk of forming an explosive mixture within the system. PEM electrolyzers also operate at relatively low temperatures (50–80°C) and can respond rapidly to the fluctuating power input from renewable sources like wind and solar, allowing for safe operation under dynamic conditions. Many systems are also designed to produce hydrogen at significant pressure (up to 50 bar), which can reduce the requirements for hazardous downstream gas compression.
Figure 3: Schematic of a PEM Electrolyzer with Key Safety Features. The solid polymer membrane acts as a physical barrier, which is a key inherent safety feature that prevents the mixing of hydrogen and oxygen product gases.
Alkaline Electrolyzers Alkaline electrolysis is a more mature and robust technology that has been used in industrial applications for decades.
Mechanism: This technology uses a liquid electrolyte, typically a solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH) in water, and a porous diaphragm to separate the anode and cathode compartments. At the cathode, water is split into hydrogen gas and hydroxide ions (OH^-). The hydroxide ions travel through the liquid electrolyte and across the diaphragm to the anode, where they combine to form oxygen gas and water.
Safety Considerations: While alkaline technology is well-proven and reliable, its design presents different safety challenges compared to PEM. The use of a porous diaphragm submerged in a liquid electrolyte can allow for a higher rate of gas crossover, meaning some hydrogen can mix into the oxygen stream and vice versa. This risk is particularly pronounced during low-load or dynamic operation, which can lead to the formation of explosive gas mixtures if not properly managed. To mitigate this, industrial alkaline systems are equipped with sensitive gas monitoring and are typically designed with a minimum operating load (e.g., 10-40%) below which the system will shut down to prevent gas impurity from reaching unsafe levels (e.g., >2% hydrogen in oxygen). The liquid KOH electrolyte is also caustic, which introduces chemical handling hazards for maintenance personnel that are not present in PEM systems.
Figure 4: Schematic of an Alkaline Electrolyzer with Key Safety Features. Safety in alkaline systems relies on the diaphragm and downstream gas separation and purity monitoring to prevent the formation of explosive H₂/O₂ mixtures, especially during dynamic operation.
4.2 Critical Safety Systems for Electrolyzer Plants
Regardless of the specific cell technology, a commercial electrolyzer plant is a complex system where the stack is supported by a "Balance of Plant" (BOP) that includes numerous critical safety systems. The overall safety of the plant is a system-level property that depends on the successful integration of all these components.
Gas Purity and Crossover Monitoring: This is the most vital safety function. Continuous gas analyzers are installed on both the hydrogen and oxygen outlet streams to monitor for cross-contamination. If the concentration of hydrogen in the oxygen stream (or vice versa) approaches a predefined safety limit (typically well below the LFL, e.g., 2%), the system's controller will trigger an alarm and initiate an automated safe shutdown.
Leak Detection and Ventilation: The electrolyzer stack and BOP components are typically housed in an enclosure or a dedicated room. This space must be equipped with hydrogen detectors, placed at high points, to provide early warning of any external leaks. This detection system is coupled with a high-capacity ventilation system designed to rapidly dilute any leaked hydrogen to a concentration safely below the 4% LFL. A high rate of air exchange (e.g., 15 air changes per hour) is a common design basis for these ventilation systems.
Pressure and Temperature Management: The entire process is monitored by pressure and temperature sensors. These are interlocked with the control system to shut down the electrolyzer if pressures or temperatures exceed safe operating limits. In addition, all pressurized components, including vessels and piping, are protected by mechanical pressure relief devices (e.g., relief valves, rupture disks) that safely vent excess pressure to a designated outdoor location.
Electrical Safety and Hazardous Area Classification: Electrolyzer systems operate with high-voltage DC power. All electrical equipment must comply with relevant safety standards (e.g., the Low Voltage Directive). The area around the electrolyzer where a flammable atmosphere could potentially form in the event of a leak is classified as a hazardous area. All electrical equipment installed within this zone, including sensors, lighting, and motors, must be specially designed and certified as explosion-proof or intrinsically safe to prevent it from becoming an ignition source (e.g., meeting ATEX or equivalent standards).
Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) and Emergency Shutdown (ESD): The entire plant is orchestrated by a PLC. This controller receives inputs from all safety sensors (purity, leak, pressure, temperature) and continuously monitors the health of the system. If any parameter deviates from its safe operating window, the PLC is programmed to automatically execute a pre-defined Emergency Shutdown (ESD) sequence, safely stopping the process, isolating power, and purging the system.
Section 5: Ensuring Pipeline Integrity and Safety
Pipelines are the arteries of the gas economy, providing the safest and most efficient means of transporting large volumes of energy over long distances. The safety and reliability of this critical infrastructure depend on robust design, diligent maintenance, and a comprehensive integrity management system. While the natural gas industry has a century of experience in this area, the introduction of hydrogen—either as a blend in existing pipelines or as a pure gas in new ones—presents significant new challenges that require a re-evaluation of traditional practices.
5.1 Pipeline Design and Material Considerations
The choice of material is the first line of defense in ensuring pipeline integrity.
Natural Gas Pipelines: The vast majority of the U.S. natural gas transmission network is constructed from high-carbon steel, with specific grades selected to meet the pressure and environmental demands of the route. In lower-pressure distribution systems, plastic materials like polyethylene have become common due to their corrosion resistance and ease of installation.
Hydrogen's Impact on Pipeline Materials: Hydrogen's unique properties pose significant challenges to conventional pipeline materials.
Hydrogen Embrittlement: The most critical material challenge is hydrogen embrittlement. Because hydrogen atoms are so small, they can diffuse into the crystal lattice of steel. Once inside, they can reduce the metal's ductility and its ability to resist crack propagation. This makes the steel, particularly high-strength steels and welds, susceptible to brittle fracture at stress levels well below what the material would normally tolerate. This phenomenon fundamentally changes the risk profile of a steel pipeline, introducing a failure mode that is less predictable than slow-acting corrosion.
Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure: The potential for embrittlement raises serious questions about the feasibility of repurposing the existing natural gas pipeline network for hydrogen service. While research indicates that blending low concentrations of hydrogen (e.g., 5-15%) may be possible in many parts of the existing system, transporting 100% hydrogen would require a thorough re-assessment of the pipeline's materials, operating pressure, and weld integrity. Organizations like Sandia National Laboratories are conducting extensive research to develop the data and models needed to assess material compatibility and establish safe operating parameters for hydrogen and hydrogen-natural gas blends.
5.2 Pipeline Integrity Management Programs (IMPs)
To ensure the ongoing safety of pipelines, PHMSA requires operators to implement comprehensive Pipeline Integrity Management Programs (IMPs). An IMP is a systematic, data-driven process for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks to a pipeline segment, with a particular focus on High Consequence Areas (HCAs)—locations where a failure would have the greatest potential impact on people and property.
The core components of an effective IMP include:
Threat Identification and Risk Assessment: The program begins with a systematic analysis to identify all credible threats to the pipeline's integrity. These threats are typically categorized as time-dependent (e.g., internal/external corrosion), stable (e.g., manufacturing defects like a bad weld), and time-independent (e.g., third-party excavation damage, incorrect operation). The operator then assesses the risk associated with these threats for each pipeline segment.
Baseline and Continual Assessments: The operator must conduct a baseline assessment to determine the initial condition of the pipeline in HCAs. This is followed by periodic re-assessments (at least every seven years) to monitor for any degradation over time. There are three primary methods for these assessments:
In-line Inspection (ILI): This involves sending a sophisticated robotic tool, often called a "smart pig," through the interior of the pipeline. These tools use various technologies (e.g., magnetic flux leakage, ultrasonics) to detect, locate, and size anomalies such as corrosion, dents, and cracks.
Pressure Testing: The pipeline segment is isolated, removed from service, and filled with water (hydrostatic testing). The pressure is then raised to a level significantly higher than the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP). This test serves as a proof of strength; any defects that cannot withstand the test pressure will fail in a controlled manner, allowing for repair before the line is returned to service.
Direct Assessment (DA): This is a structured, multi-step process used to assess specific threats when ILI or pressure testing is not feasible. For example, External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) involves above-ground surveys to identify areas where corrosion may be occurring, followed by targeted excavations and direct examination of the pipe.
The introduction of hydrogen into pipelines will require a significant evolution of these IMPs. The risk assessment models must be updated to account for the threat of hydrogen embrittlement, and new inspection technologies may be needed to effectively detect hydrogen-induced damage, which can be more subtle than the metal loss associated with corrosion.
5.3 Essential Pipeline Safety Systems
In addition to integrity management, pipelines are equipped with multiple layers of active and passive safety systems designed to prevent failures and mitigate their consequences.
Figure 5: Diagram of a Natural Gas Pipeline System with Safety Features. A multi-layered safety approach combines physical barriers (coatings), electrochemical protection (cathodic protection), operational monitoring (SCADA), and physical controls (valves) to ensure integrity.
Corrosion Control: Since external corrosion is a leading threat to steel pipelines, a two-part system is used for protection.
Protective Coatings: The pipeline is covered with a durable coating, like fusion-bonded epoxy, which acts as the primary physical barrier between the steel and the corrosive soil environment.
Cathodic Protection (CP): Because coatings can develop small defects or "holidays" over time, a secondary system is required. CP applies a low-voltage direct current to the pipeline, making the steel the cathode of an electrochemical cell. This effectively halts the corrosion process at any locations where the bare steel is exposed. This is a mandatory and highly effective safety measure.
Operational Monitoring and Control:
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA): Modern pipeline networks are monitored and often controlled from a central control room using a SCADA system. This computer-based system collects real-time data from sensors along the pipeline—measuring pressure, flow rate, temperature, and equipment status. This allows operators to monitor the pipeline's health, detect abnormal conditions that could indicate a leak, and, in many systems, remotely operate valves and compressors to safely manage the flow of gas.
Valves: Pipelines are equipped with valves at regular intervals. In the event of a rupture, these valves can be closed to isolate the damaged section and stop the flow of gas, thereby limiting the amount of fuel released and the duration and severity of any fire. Modern regulations increasingly require these valves to be remotely or automatically actuated to reduce response times.
Leak Detection: Multiple methods are used to detect leaks:
Physical Patrols: Operators conduct regular aerial or ground patrols of the pipeline right-of-way to look for visual signs of a leak, such as blowing dirt, dead vegetation, or bubbling in water.
Public Reporting: For odorized natural gas, reports from the public who smell a leak are a primary method of detection.
Technological Systems: For non-odorized gas and hydrogen, operators rely on technology. This can include computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) systems that use SCADA data to infer a leak from pressure and flow deviations. More advanced systems use dedicated technologies like fiber-optic cables laid alongside the pipe that can detect temperature changes or acoustic signals from a leak, or specialized hydrogen sensors for targeted monitoring. Hydrogen detection systems are typically set to alarm at a low percentage of the LFL (e.g., 1% concentration) to provide the earliest possible warning.
The effectiveness of these systems, particularly SCADA, is not just a function of the technology itself. It is deeply intertwined with human factors. The San Bruno investigation revealed that even with SCADA data indicating a problem, control room operators were initially slow to correctly diagnose the nature and location of the rupture. This underscores the critical importance of robust operator training, well-designed human-machine interfaces, and clear procedures for responding to alarms—linking these advanced engineering controls directly back to the administrative controls and safety culture of the organization.
Section 6: Incidents, Investigations, and Lessons Learned
The most powerful catalysts for improving safety are often the failures of the past. A critical analysis of major incidents provides invaluable, albeit tragic, lessons that expose weaknesses in technology, procedures, and organizational culture. By deconstructing these events, the industry can identify recurring failure patterns and develop more robust defenses to prevent their recurrence. This section examines three seminal incidents—one involving hydrogen and two involving natural gas—to extract cross-cutting lessons that inform modern safety practices.
6.1 Case Study: The Hindenburg Disaster (1937)
The Event: On May 6, 1937, the German passenger airship LZ 129 Hindenburg erupted in flames while attempting to land in Lakehurst, New Jersey. The catastrophic fire destroyed the airship in just over 30 seconds, resulting in 36 fatalities.
Investigation and Modern Analysis: The immediate and lasting narrative blamed the disaster on the extreme flammability of the 7 million cubic feet of hydrogen gas used for lift, likely ignited by a static electric discharge. This spectacular and widely publicized event created a profound and enduring public perception of hydrogen as an unacceptably dangerous fuel. However, modern forensic analysis, particularly by former NASA hydrogen program manager Addison Bain, has fundamentally challenged this simple narrative. Bain's research concluded that while the hydrogen certainly burned and contributed to the disaster's scale, the fire's initial ignition and incredibly rapid spread were likely due to the airship's outer fabric skin. This skin was treated with a "dope" containing cellulose nitrate and aluminum powder, a combination of materials with properties similar to solid rocket fuel, making the envelope itself highly flammable. The fire likely started on the skin and then spread, eventually rupturing the hydrogen gas cells within.
Key Lessons Learned:
Holistic System Safety: The Hindenburg is a powerful lesson that safety analysis must consider the entire system, not just the most obvious hazard. The focus on the hydrogen fuel overlooked the critical role of the flammable envelope material, which was the true catalyst for the fire's rapid propagation.
The Power of Public Perception: Regardless of the precise technical cause, the Hindenburg disaster indelibly shaped public opinion about hydrogen safety for generations. This demonstrates that for any new energy technology, managing public perception through transparent communication, education, and demonstrable safety is as crucial as the engineering itself. The incident remains a major historical hurdle that the modern hydrogen industry must overcome.
6.2 Case Study: San Bruno Natural Gas Pipeline Explosion (2010)
The Event: On September 9, 2010, a 30-inch diameter natural gas transmission pipeline owned by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) ruptured in the residential community of San Bruno, California. The resulting explosion and fire killed eight people, injured many others, and destroyed 38 homes.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Investigation Findings: The NTSB's exhaustive investigation determined that the probable cause was the failure of a defective longitudinal seam weld on a segment of pipe that had been installed in 1956. The investigation uncovered a cascade of deep, systemic failures within both PG&E and the regulatory system:
Catastrophic Record-Keeping Failures: PG&E's pipeline records were critically flawed. The segment that failed was documented as being seamless pipe, when in fact it was a collection of poorly welded, non-standard pipe sections. This lack of "traceable, verifiable, and complete" records made it impossible for PG&E to know the true risk profile of its own pipeline.
Deficient Integrity Management Program: Because PG&E did not know it had substandard pipe in the ground, its Integrity Management Program (IMP) was fundamentally flawed. The risk models were based on incorrect data, and as a result, the company failed to identify the threat and take appropriate assessment and mitigation actions.
Critical Regulatory Loopholes: The pipeline, having been installed before federal pipeline safety regulations were established in 1970, was "grandfathered" and thus exempt from the requirement to undergo a hydrostatic pressure test to validate its Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP). The NTSB concluded there was no safety justification for this exemption and strongly recommended its elimination, a recommendation that has since driven major regulatory changes.
Key Lessons Learned:
Data Integrity is the Bedrock of Safety: An IMP is only as good as the data it is built on. The San Bruno disaster is the quintessential example of how poor record-keeping can directly lead to a catastrophe.
Legacy Infrastructure Poses Unknown Risks: "Grandfathering" older assets from modern safety standards creates a dangerous blind spot. All infrastructure, regardless of age, must be subject to rigorous standards and validation testing to ensure its integrity is known and managed.
Safety Culture Reflects Corporate Priorities: The NTSB's findings pointed to a deficient organizational culture at PG&E that failed to prioritize safety, leading to the systemic breakdown of its management systems.
6.3 Case Study: Muskingum River Power Plant Hydrogen Explosion (2007)
The Event: On January 8, 2007, an explosion occurred in the hydrogen storage area of the Muskingum River Power Plant in Ohio, operated by American Electric Power (AEP). The explosion, which happened during a routine hydrogen delivery, killed the truck driver and injured ten plant workers.
Investigation Findings: The investigation revealed that the incident was not a single failure but a sequence of interconnected technical and procedural flaws:
Component Failure and Flawed Venting: The incident began when a rupture disk on a hydrogen storage tank failed prematurely. This should have been a safe event, with the hydrogen venting harmlessly to the atmosphere. However, the vent piping was made of thin-walled, corroded copper tubing that was not rated for the pressure and thrust of the release. The piping failed, directing the hydrogen leak sideways instead of upwards.
Catastrophic Design Flaw: The entire hydrogen storage system was located under a three-walled weather awning. This structure, intended to protect equipment from the elements, acted as a trap for the highly buoyant hydrogen gas. Instead of dissipating, the gas collected under the awning, forming a large, confined explosive cloud that was then ignited by an unknown source.
Management of Change (MOC) Failure: The investigation found that the rupture disk that failed had been replaced six months prior with an incorrect type, and non-OEM parts were used. This change was made without a formal MOC review to assess its safety implications.
Failure to Learn from Prior Events: A nearly identical, though less severe, incident had occurred at a sister AEP plant two years earlier, involving a rupture disk failure and inadequate vent piping. The company had identified the risks but failed to apply the lessons learned and corrective actions across all its facilities, including Muskingum River. This failure was so egregious that a jury later found it amounted to a "deliberate intent" to injure.
Key Lessons Learned:
Design for the Hazard: Safety systems must be designed for the specific properties of the chemical being handled. The awning design was a catastrophic failure because it ignored hydrogen's extreme buoyancy.
MOC is Non-Negotiable: Even seemingly minor changes, like replacing a component, must undergo a rigorous MOC process to prevent unforeseen negative consequences.
Organizational Learning is a Safety Imperative: An organization's failure to learn from its own past incidents is a profound cultural and systemic breakdown. Lessons must be shared, tracked, and implemented across the entire enterprise.
6.4 Synthesis of Lessons Learned
Analyzing these disparate events reveals common themes that are the root causes of most major industrial accidents. Catastrophic failures are almost never the result of a single, unforeseeable event. Rather, they are the predictable outcome of multiple, smaller failures aligning—a concept often described by the "Swiss Cheese Model" of accident causation. Latent technical flaws (a bad weld, a corroded pipe) are allowed to persist due to weaknesses in management systems (poor records, no MOC), which are themselves often the product of a deficient safety culture that prioritizes cost or production over proactive risk management. The consistent recurrence of failures in asset integrity, management of change, and organizational learning across these incidents underscores the critical importance of a holistic and integrated approach to safety, as embodied by the principles of Process Safety Management and a robust safety culture.
Section 7: Emergency Preparedness and Public Communication
Even with the most robust prevention systems in place, the potential for incidents involving flammable gases can never be eliminated entirely. Therefore, the final layers of a comprehensive safety framework are emergency preparedness and effective public communication. This involves ensuring that professional first responders are equipped with the specialized knowledge to handle these incidents safely, and that the public receives clear, timely, and actionable information during an emergency to protect themselves.
7.1 Educating First Responders
A properly trained emergency response force is essential for managing incidents involving hydrogen and natural gas. Given their growing presence in communities through applications like fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) and hydrogen fueling stations, ensuring first responders are prepared is critical not only for immediate safety but also for fostering public confidence.
The Need for Hydrogen-Specific Training: While first responders are highly trained in managing fires involving conventional hydrocarbon fuels, hydrogen presents unique challenges that require specialized knowledge and tactics. Its distinct properties necessitate a different approach to size-up, hazard assessment, and control actions.
Core Training Curriculum: A comprehensive training program for first responders, such as those developed by the Center for Hydrogen Safety (CHS) and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, covers several key areas :
Hydrogen Fundamentals: An overview of hydrogen's properties, with a direct comparison to natural gas and gasoline. This includes its extreme buoyancy, wide flammability range, low ignition energy, and the characteristics of its nearly invisible, low-radiant-heat flame.
Hydrogen Systems and Vehicles: Familiarization with the components of FCEVs, including the high-pressure composite storage tanks (and their thermally activated pressure relief devices), as well as the layout of hydrogen fueling stations and stationary storage systems.
Incident Response Tactics: This is the most critical component, teaching responders counter-intuitive but essential tactics. A primary lesson is that a burning hydrogen jet fire should generally not be extinguished. Doing so without stopping the fuel flow can lead to the formation of a large, un-ignited, and potentially explosive vapor cloud, which is a far greater hazard. The focus is on securing the area, eliminating ignition sources, stopping the leak if possible, and protecting exposures while letting the fire consume the leaking fuel. Training also covers the use of thermal imaging cameras to see the invisible flame and specific procedures for vehicle extrication to avoid damaging high-pressure components.
Available Resources: A wealth of training materials is available to support local fire departments, including web-based awareness courses, in-depth micro-training modules, and a national repository of standardized training content. Additionally, vehicle manufacturers provide detailed Emergency Response Guides (ERGs) for their specific FCEV models, which are indispensable tools for responders at an incident scene.
7.2 Public Communication Strategies in an Emergency
During a gas-related emergency, communicating effectively with the public is a critical life-safety function. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides extensive guidance on the principles of effective emergency public information, which are directly applicable to such events. The goal is to provide information that is clear, credible, and actionable, enabling people to make safe decisions.
Core Principles of Emergency Communication:
Clarity and Simplicity: Use plain language and avoid technical jargon. Messages must be easily understood by people under stress.
Timeliness and Accuracy: Information must be disseminated as quickly as possible to prevent the spread of rumors and misinformation. However, speed must be balanced with accuracy; all information must be verified before release.
Consistency and Credibility: All official sources (e.g., fire department, utility, emergency management) must speak with one voice. Messages should be consistent across all platforms and delivered by a trusted source.
Actionable Instructions: The most important part of an emergency message is telling people exactly what they need to do to stay safe. This includes specific instructions for protective actions like sheltering-in-place (staying indoors with windows and doors closed) or evacuating via designated routes.
Reaching the "Whole Community": An effective communication strategy must ensure that messages reach everyone in the affected population. This requires a multi-channel approach and attention to accessibility.
Multiple Channels: Use a variety of communication tools to maximize reach, including broadcast media (TV, radio), Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) sent to mobile phones, local mass notification systems, and social media.
Accessibility: Messages must be accessible to individuals with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. This includes providing sign language interpreters at press conferences, closed captioning on video broadcasts, and translating written materials into the major languages spoken in the community.
Gas-Specific Messaging: Public communication plans must be tailored to the specific physical properties of the gas involved. A generic "gas leak" warning is insufficient and can be dangerous. For a hydrogen or natural gas leak, which are lighter than air, the appropriate instruction might be to shelter-in-place. For a heavier-than-air gas like propane, the instruction would be to evacuate and move to higher ground. This highlights the need for pre-developed, hazard-specific message templates that can be deployed quickly in an emergency.
7.3 Building Public Trust and Acceptance
The foundation of both emergency preparedness and the successful deployment of new energy infrastructure is public trust. The legacy of incidents like the San Bruno explosion or the Hinkley groundwater contamination demonstrates that technical safety alone is not sufficient. The public must also have confidence in the operators and regulators responsible for their safety. This trust is built through proactive and transparent engagement, including:
Public education campaigns about the properties of the fuels and the safety systems in place.
Community meetings and open houses to discuss new projects and address local concerns.
Clear and honest communication about any incidents that do occur, including the steps being taken to prevent them in the future.
By integrating robust technical safety, comprehensive emergency preparedness, and transparent public engagement, the energy industry can build the resilient and trusted systems needed to safely deliver both natural gas and hydrogen.
Conclusions
This comprehensive analysis of the safety frameworks for hydrogen and natural gas reveals a complex and evolving landscape where fundamental science, engineering discipline, regulatory oversight, and human factors must converge to manage risk effectively. Several overarching conclusions emerge from this review:
Safety is Context-Dependent and Nuanced. There is no simple answer to the question of whether hydrogen is "safer" than natural gas. Hydrogen's unique properties create a double-edged safety profile: its buoyancy is a significant advantage in preventing ground-level fuel accumulation, while its wide flammability range and low ignition energy demand more stringent ignition source control and ventilation than natural gas. The conclusion is that safety cannot be assessed in a vacuum; it is entirely dependent on the specific application, environment (confined vs. unconfined), and the robustness of the engineering controls tailored to the specific fuel's properties.
A Dual Foundation of PSM and Safety Culture is Non-Negotiable. The prevention of catastrophic incidents in high-hazard industries is fundamentally reliant on two pillars. The first is a formal, systematic framework like OSHA's Process Safety Management (PSM), which provides the necessary structure, procedures, and auditable processes. The second, and arguably more critical, is a proactive safety culture. The case studies of San Bruno and Muskingum River demonstrate that even with procedures in place, a culture that allows for poor record-keeping, circumvents Management of Change, or fails to learn from past mistakes will inevitably lead to failure. A strong safety culture is the essential animating force that makes a PSM system effective in practice.
The Transition to Hydrogen Requires a Paradigm Shift in Integrity Management and Regulation. The existing natural gas infrastructure and its associated regulatory framework were built around the predictable challenges of a hydrocarbon gas, primarily corrosion. The introduction of hydrogen, particularly in high concentrations, fundamentally alters the primary material threat to that of hydrogen embrittlement—a more complex and potentially rapid failure mechanism. This necessitates a significant evolution in pipeline integrity management, requiring new inspection technologies, updated risk models, and a potential re-evaluation of the suitability of legacy assets. The ongoing work by standards bodies like ASME and the ICC to harmonize codes reflects this critical transition.
Technological Reliance in Safety Systems is Increasing. The inability to odorize hydrogen effectively marks a pivotal shift from a safety system that includes human sensory detection to one that must rely entirely on technology. This elevates the importance of engineering controls like sensors and automated shutdown systems, and by extension, the Mechanical Integrity programs required to ensure their continuous reliability. As systems become more complex, the role of well-trained operators and robust human-machine interfaces, such as those in SCADA control rooms, becomes even more critical to prevent technology from becoming a source of failure itself.
Proactive and Transparent Communication is a Core Safety Function. In an era of increasing public scrutiny and rapid information dissemination, effective communication is no longer an ancillary activity but a core component of a holistic safety program. This includes specialized training to equip first responders with the counter-intuitive tactics needed for hydrogen incidents, as well as clear, accurate, and accessible communication with the public during emergencies. Ultimately, building and maintaining public trust is essential for the societal acceptance and successful deployment of the energy infrastructure of the future.
Works cited
1. 6 Differences between Hydrogen and Natural Gas | POWER Engineers, https://www.powereng.com/library/6-things-to-remember-about-hydrogen-vs-natural-gas/ 2. Hydrogen Compared To Other Fuels | H2tools, https://h2tools.org/bestpractices/gaseous-gh2-and-liquid-h2-fueling-stations/hydrogen-compared-to-other-fuels 3. hydrogen, fuel cells, and infrastructure - Department of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f12/overview_final.pdf 4. SAFETY DATA SHEET - Airgas, https://www.airgas.com/msds/001026.pdf 5. Hydrogen Safety, https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf 6. Methane - SAFETY DATA SHEET, https://www.airgas.com/msds/001033.pdf 7. Natural gas - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas 8. natural-gas-safety-data-sheet.pdf - ATCO, https://www.atco.com/content/dam/web/for-business/natural-gas/documents/natural-gas-safety-data-sheet.pdf 9. Hydrogen safety - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety 10. Hydrogen Leak Detection | H2tools | Hydrogen Tools, https://h2tools.org/hydrogen-leak-detection 11. www.powereng.com, https://www.powereng.com/library/6-things-to-remember-about-hydrogen-vs-natural-gas/#:~:text=For%20hydrogen%2C%20the%20lower%20and,at%205%25%20and%2015%25. 12. Hydrogen Explosion Events and Comparison with Methane - Thornton Tomasetti, https://www.thorntontomasetti.com/resource/hydrogen-explosion-events-and-comparison-methane 13. MODELING THE RISK OF FIRE/EXPLOSION DUE TO OXIDIZER/FUEL LEAKS IN THE ARES I INTERSTAGE, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110004369/downloads/20110004369.pdf 14. Would there be any difference/downside to using hydrogen over normal natural gas - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/1artpbd/would_there_be_any_differencedownside_to_using/ 15. Hydrogen Fire Safety: Standards and Regulations - FASTECH, https://www.fastechus.com/blog/hydrogen-fire-safety-standards-regulations/ 16. Safety Data Sheet - NOVA Chemicals, https://www.novachem.com/wp-content/uploads/HydrogenCorunna_SDS_AMER_CAEN.pdf 17. Hydrogen Compared with Other Fuels, https://thehydrogen.energy/foundations/hydrogen-and-other-key-fuels-comparison/ 18. Hydrogen - Understand Energy Learning Hub - Stanford University, https://understand-energy.stanford.edu/energy-currencies/hydrogen 19. Let's do a fuel comparison: Natural Gas vs Hydrogen | Cummins Inc., https://www.cummins.com/news/2022/10/21/lets-do-fuel-comparison-natural-gas-vs-hydrogen 20. SAFETY DATA SHEET - Sigma-Aldrich, https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/sds/aldrich/295396 21. SAFETY DATA SHEET Hydrogen, compressed SECTION 1 - Linde Gas, https://produkte.linde-gas.at/sdb_konform/H2_10021694EN.pdf 22. Assessing Compatibility of Natural Gas Pipeline Materials with ..., https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JPSEA2.PSENG-1431 23. Natural Gas Safety Data Sheet - Socalgas, https://www.socalgas.com/documents/safety/safety-data-sheet-natural-gas.pdf 24. natural-gas.pdf - Safety Data Sheet - Hess Corporation, https://www.hess.com/docs/us-safety-data-sheets/natural-gas.pdf?sfvrsn=2 25. Safety Data Sheets - ONEOK, Inc., https://www.oneok.com/public-awareness/safety-data-sheets 26. Pipeline Basics & Specifics About Natural Gas Pipelines, https://pstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-PST-Briefing-Paper-02-NatGasBasics.pdf 27. Identifying Hazard Control Options: The Hierarchy of Controls - OSHA, https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdf 28. Hazard and Risk - Hierarchy of Controls - CCOHS, https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/hazard/hierarchy_controls.html 29. About Hierarchy of Controls | Hierarchy of Controls | CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hierarchy-of-controls/about/index.html 30. Reducing hazards with the Hierarchy of Controls - Texas Department of Insurance, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/tips/safety/hierarchy-of-controls.html 31. Hierarchy of hazard controls - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_controls 32. NIOSH's Hierarchy of Controls - NES, Inc., https://nes-ehs.com/nes-safety-topic/nioshs-hierarchy-of-controls/ 33. File:NIOSH's “Hierarchy of Controls infographic” as SVG.svg - Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NIOSH%E2%80%99s_%E2%80%9CHierarchy_of_Controls_infographic%E2%80%9D_as_SVG.svg 34. Hierarchy of Controls for Chemical Hazard Management | Chemscape Safety Technologies, https://www.chemscape.com/blog/hierarchy-controls-workplace-safety-chemical-hazards 35. Toolbox Talk: Hierarchy of Controls - Garco Construction, https://www.garco.com/toolbox-talk-hierarchy-of-controls/ 36. 1910.103 - Hydrogen. | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.103 37. Chemical Hazards and Toxic Substances - Controlling Exposure | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, https://www.osha.gov/chemical-hazards/controlling-exposure 38. Overview of Process Safety Management (PSM) - Inspectioneering, https://inspectioneering.com/tag/process+safety+management 39. Build a Strong Safety Culture in the Oil and Gas Industry, https://tigersafetyrentals.com/how-to-build-a-strong-safety-culture-in-the-oil-and-gas-industry 40. The Hierarchy of Controls | October 2022 - Safety+Health magazine, https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/22994-hierarchy-of-controls 41. A Guide to Offshore Safety | SafetyCulture, https://safetyculture.com/topics/offshore-safety/ 42. Safety Data Sheet - Chevron, https://cglapps.chevron.com/msdspds/SDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=680684&docFormat=PDF 43. Hydrogen - Air Liquide Safety Data Sheets, https://www.alsafetydatasheets.com/download/se/Hydrogen_compressed-SE_ENG.pdf 44. 29 CFR 1910.119 -- Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals. - eCFR, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-H/section-1910.119 45. Process safety management - Oregon OSHA, https://osha.oregon.gov/pages/topics/process-safety-management.aspx 46. Activity 1: An Introduction to the Process Safety Management Standard (PSM) - OSHA, https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/fy08_sh-17813-08_1_psm_introduction.doc 47. 14 Elements of Process Safety Management Infographic - ioMosaic, https://www.iomosaic.com/services/process-safety-management/docs/default-source/Publications/14-elements-of-process-safety-management-infographic 48. 1910.119 - Process safety management of highly hazardous ... - OSHA, https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.119 49. Process Safety Management - OSHA, https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha3132.pdf 50. Building and Maintaining A Safety Culture in the Oil and Gas ..., https://fatfinger.io/safety-culture-oil-and-gas/ 51. 8 Characteristics Of A Positive Safety Culture - Infinit-I Workforce Solutions, https://infinitiworkforce.com/2024/12/30/positive-safety-culture/ 52. Building a Strong Safety Culture: Insights from High-Risk Industries - NIST Global Blog, https://nistglobal.com/blog/2024/10/building-a-strong-safety-culture-insights-from-high-risk-industries/ 53. PHMSA Regulations - Department of Transportation, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations 54. Agencies - Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/pipeline-and-hazardous-materials-safety-administration 55. Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 | PHMSA - Department of Transportation, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/working-phmsa/state-programs/natural-gas-pipeline-safety-act-1968 56. PHMSA Mega Rule Guide To Compliance - American Innovations, https://www.aiworldwide.com/phmsa-mega-rule-your-guide-to-compliance-through-integrity-management-cathodic-protection-pipeline-mapping-and-more/ 57. Gas Gathering Regulatory Overview | PHMSA - Department of Transportation, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/rulemaking-implementation/gas-gathering/gas-gathering-regulatory-overview 58. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office Multi-Year Program Plan: Safety, Codes and Standards, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/hfto-mypp-safety-codes-standards.pdf 59. NFPA 2 Code Development, https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-2-standard-development/2 60. h2tools.org, https://h2tools.org/hydrogen-leak-detection#:~:text=Leak%20detection%20can%20be%20achieved,is%20present%20in%20the%20system. 61. NFPA 2 Hydrogen Technologies Code | H2tools, https://h2tools.org/fuel-cell-codes-and-standards/nfpa-2-hydrogen-technologies-code 62. Second Revision No. 15-NFPA 86-2021 [ Global Comment ] - National Fire Protection Association Report, https://www.nfpa.org/api/files?path=%2Ffiles%2FAboutTheCodes%2F86%2F86_A2022_OVE_AAA_SD_SRStatements.pdf 63. Hydrogen Technologies Safety Guide - Publications, https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/60948.pdf 64. B31.12 - Hydrogen Piping & Pipelines | Digital Book - ASME, https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/b31-12-hydrogen-piping-pipelines 65. ASME B31.12 Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines | H2tools, https://h2tools.org/fuel-cell-codes-and-standards/asme-b3112-hydrogen-piping-and-pipelines 66. Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines - Becht, https://becht.com/becht-blog/entry/hydrogen-piping-and-pipelines/ 67. Pipeline Integrity Makes All the Difference - Audubon Companies, https://auduboncompanies.com/pipeline-integrity-makes-all-the-difference/ 68. CGA G-5.6 Hydrogen Pipeline Systems | H2tools, https://h2tools.org/fuel-cell-codes-and-standards/cga-g-56-hydrogen-pipeline-systems 69. Hydrogen Fuel - ICC - International Code Council, https://www.iccsafe.org/products-and-services/i-codes/hydrogen-fuel/ 70. MARCOGAZ H2 Infographic 2023 Version, https://www.marcogaz.org/publications/marcogaz-h2-infographic-2023-version/ 71. Transportation of hydrogen gas in offshore pipelines: H2Pipe - DNV, https://www.dnv.com/article/transportation-of-hydrogen-gas-in-offshore-pipelines-h2pipe-213006/ 72. Hydrogen Production: Electrolysis | Department of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-electrolysis 73. Alkaline or PEM electrolyzers: Which should you choose?, https://johncockerill.com/en/press-and-news/news/alkaline-or-pem-electrolyzers-which-should-you-choose/ 74. Proton exchange membrane electrolysis - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_exchange_membrane_electrolysis 75. PEM Electrolyzers - Caplinq, https://www.caplinq.com/renewable-energy/water-electrolyzers/pem-electrolyzers/ 76. SAFETY CONCEPT OF A SELF-SUSTAINING PEM HYDROGEN ELECTROLYZER SYSTEM, https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/paper_193.pdf 77. PEM vs Alkaline electrolysis - Nel Hydrogen, https://nelhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Electrolyser-technologies-PEM-vs-Alkaline-electrolysis-%E2%80%93-Single-Pages.pdf 78. Hydrogen Production by Water Electrolysis An introduction to the technologies and their status, https://ahrn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Electrolysis-Status-paper-AHRN.pdf 79. A schematic flow diagram of an alkaline water electrolyzer. The... - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-schematic-flow-diagram-of-an-alkaline-water-electrolyzer-The-electrolyte-is-pumped_fig2_339504967 80. Schematic diagram of the alkaline electrolysis cell [34]. - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-diagram-of-the-alkaline-electrolysis-cell-34_fig4_327179309 81. Safety and gas quality of hydrogen electrolyzers - Process Sensing Technologies, https://www.processsensing.com/en-us/blog/safety-gas-quality-hydrogen-electrolyzers.htm 82. Safety, Codes, and Standards | Hydrogen and Fuel Cells - NREL, https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/safety-codes-standards 83. (PDF) PEM electrolysis system performance and system safety integration - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346659485_PEM_electrolysis_system_performance_and_system_safety_integration 84. Pipeline Basics and Specifics About Natural Gas Pipelines, https://pstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/02-PST-BriefingPaper-NatGasBasics.pdf 85. Materials Compatibility - Energy - Sandia National Laboratories, https://energy.sandia.gov/programs/sustainable-transportation/hydrogen/materials-compatibility/ 86. Hydrogen Safety Challenges: A Comprehensive Review on ... - MDPI, https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/6/1350 87. Lesson learned from H2-related incidents: criticality of maintenance operations, https://h2-glass.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/haz33-079-Giulia-Collina_Lesson-learned-from-H2-related-incidents-1.pdf 88. Transmission Integrity Management Program - Atlanta Gas Light, https://www.atlantagaslight.com/safety/safety-precautions/transmission-integrity-management-plan.html 89. Risk Assessment of Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines at Major River Crossings - IChemE, https://www.icheme.org/media/15464/paper-14.pdf 90. Risk Assessment of Oil and Gas Pipeline Based on Vague Set ..., https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/2/349 91. The National Transportation Safety Board's Report on San Bruno: Implications for Pipeline Safety | Van Ness Feldman LLP, https://www.vnf.com/704 92. Preventing corrosion with cathodic protection. - TC Energy, https://www.tcenergy.com/siteassets/pdfs/commitment/safety/pipelines-and-operations/tc-cathodic-protection.pdf 93. Pipelines Cathodic Protection - Borna Electronics thodic Protection - برنا الکترونیک, https://borna-co.com/en/pipelines-cathodic-protection/ 94. Schematic showing cathodic protection methods using sacrificial anode and impressed current. - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-showing-cathodic-protection-methods-using-sacrificial-anode-and-impressed_fig1_272661241 95. The Basics of Cathodic Protection - Corrosionpedia, https://www.corrosionpedia.com/2/1368/prevention/cathodic-protection/cathodic-protection-101 96. SCADA and Telemetry in Natural Gas Operations, https://asgmt.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023_SCADA_and_Telemetry_in_Natural_Gas_Operations.pdf 97. SCADA And Telemetry In Gas Transmission Systems, https://pgjonline.com/magazine/2015/february-2015-vol-242-no-2/features/scada-and-telemetry-in-gas-transmission-systems 98. Pipeline Safety and Emergency Information, https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Enb/Documents/Brochures/Brochure_EmergencyandPublicOfficial_NG_GTM.pdf 99. National Transportation Safety Board - NTSB, https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/P-11-008-020.pdf 100. Hindenburg Disaster Investigation | Coconote, https://coconote.app/notes/aad2c042-0e86-4b60-badd-bdc149b93a9f 101. Hindenburg disaster - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster 102. Official Hindenburg Accident Report: German Investigation ..., https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/german-investigation/ 103. National Transportation Safety Board, https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/P-10-002-004.pdf 104. Pacific Gas & Electric Pipeline Rupture in San Bruno, CA | PHMSA, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/safety-awareness/pipeline/pacific-gas-electric-pipeline-rupture-san-bruno-ca 105. Significant Verdict in Washington County | Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels, https://fieldsdehmlow.com/significant-verdict-in-washington-county/ 106. Lessons learned from a hydrogen explosion (Journal Article) - OSTI.GOV, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/21197946 107. Hydrogen Explosion at Power Plant Results in a $6.9M Verdict - Courtroom View Network, https://blog.cvn.com/2011/09/09/hydrogen-explosion-at-power-plant-results-in-a-6-9m-verdict 108. Case Study: Power Plant Hydrogen Explosion - WHA International, Inc., https://wha-international.com/case-study-power-plant-hydrogen-explosion/ 109. American Electric Power to Pay Close to $ 7 Million in Explosion Death - Munley Law, https://munley.com/american-electric-power-to-pay-close-to-7-million-in-explosion-death/ 110. Hydrogen Safety Training for First Responders - CT.gov, https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CFPC/_old_files/H2SafetyTrainingFlierConnecticut09152016pdf.pdf 111. Lecture 1 Introduction of hydrogen safety for responders LEVEL I Firefighter - CTIF, https://ctif.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/L1_HyResponder_Level1_210616.pdf 112. Training Materials | H2tools | Hydrogen Tools, https://h2tools.org/training-materials 113. Safety | Hydrogen Program - Department of Energy, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program-areas/safety 114. National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Emergency Response Training Resource | H2tools, https://h2tools.org/national-hydrogen-and-fuel-cell-emergency-response-training-resource 115. CHS First Responders Micro Training Learning Plan - AIChE, https://www.aiche.org/ili/academy/courses/elp001/chs-first-responders-micro-training-learning-plan 116. Lesson 3. Communicating in an Emergency - FEMA Training, https://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/is242b/student%20manual/sm_03.pdf 117. IS-242.B: - Effective Communication - FEMA Training, https://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/is242b/student%20manual/sm_complete.pdf 118. Effective Communication for Emergency Situations in Oil and Gas ..., https://www.steeldna.com/blog-post/effective-communication-for-emergency-situations-in-oil-and-gas-operations 119. Tips for Effectively Communicating with the Whole Community in Disasters, https://www.dhs.gov/archive/publication/tips-effectively-communicating-whole-community-disasters 120. Make A Plan | Ready.gov, https://www.ready.gov/plan 121. FCC/FEMA Emergency Communications Tips, https://www.fcc.gov/emergency 122. Emergency Communications - Ohio Emergency Management Agency, https://ema.ohio.gov/prepare-respond/be-prepared/preparedness-resources/emergency-communications 123. Brockovich-PG&E case | Research Starters | EBSCO Research, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/brockovich-pge-case 124. Hinkley groundwater contamination - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamination 125. The 'Erin Brockovich' town is still toxic (and nearly abandoned) - Grist.org, https://grist.org/Array/the-true-story-of-the-town-behind-erin-brockovich/ 126. PG&E Hinkley Chromium Cleanup | Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/projects/pge/ 127. 2017 Hinkley District Audit Findings and Responses, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/files/uploadedfiles/cpucwebsite/content/safety/natural_gas_pipeline/inspections/pacific_gas_and_electric/2017/pgehinckleyresponse2017.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment