Minutes of the National Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Codes and Standards Coordinating Committee/US TAG Team Meetings
Russell Hewett, NREL


Corrected Minutes
July 18th and 19th, 2005
SAE Automotive Headquarters
755 W. Big Beaver, Suite 1600, Troy MI 48084
Telephone: 248/273-2455
Fax: 248/273-2494


Day One | Day Two


DAY ONE: July 18, 2005

1.0 Call to Order/Introductions Around the Table/ Welcoming
Remarks

The combined In-Person meeting of the National Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Codes & Standards Coordinating Committee and the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Teams was called to order with Opening Remarks by Tony Androsky (on behalf of USFCC), Karen Hall (on behalf of NHA) and Jim Ohi (on behalf of DOE/HQ and NREL)

Karen Hall's welcoming remarks are Attachment A to the Minutes.

For persons new to the two groups, Tony Androsky, in his opening remarks, gave excerpts from a presentation to familiarize participants with the US Fuel Cell Council (USFCC):

USFCC Presentation (1,398Kb PDF)


Jim Ohi, in his remarks, focused on the importance of merging the activities of the two separate groups for harmonization purposes.

The listing of persons that participated in the meeting - In-Person or by teleconferencing - is provided in Attachment C to the Minutes.



2.0 DISCUSSION: INTEGRATING IN-PERSON MEETINGS OF
THE US TAG TEAMS AND THE NATIONAL HYDROGEN AND
FUEL CELLS CODES & STANDARDS COORDINATING
COMMITTEE

2.1 Background

The National Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Codes & Standards Coordinating Committee is a consortium of three entities that are merging to coordinate their hydrogen and fuel cell safety and codes and standards activities - the focus being primarily on North American activities:

• DOE Hydrogen Codes & Standards Coordinating Committee
  
• NHA Hydrogen Codes & Standards Committee
  
• USFCC Codes & Standards Working Group

Participating in the Committee are: (1) the nation's major codes and standards development organizations (i.e., CDOs and SDOs) involved in hydrogen and fuel cells; (2) hydrogen producers; (3) fuel cell manufacturers; (4) original equipment manufacturers; (5) Federal government organizations; and (6) others (e.g., California Fuel Cell Partnership). The Committee conducts monthly teleconference meetings (usually on the first Wednesday of each month). In addition, the Committee attempts to have In-Person meetings once each calendar quarter - ideally, in conjunction with an event that the members are likely to be at anyways.

The US Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) are the US representatives for participation in international organizations formulating hydrogen and fuel cell-related standards and global technical regulations. They include participating in the work of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). More specifically, there are TAGs for the following:

• ISO/Technical Committee (TC) 197 (Hydrogen Technologies)
  
• IEC/TC 105 (Fuel Cell Technologies)
  
• ISO/TC 118 (Compressors)
  
• ISO/TC 11 (Boilers and Pressure Vessels)
  
• ISO/TC 58 (Gas Cylinders)
  
• ISO/TC 22 (Road Vehicles) SubCommittee 21 (Electric Road Vehicles)
  
• ISO/TC 220 (Cryogenic Gases)
  
• ISO/TC 153 (Valves)

Other entities important to the United States' participation in international efforts are various Federal agencies such as DOE, DOT and EPA.

The US TAGs have attempted to conduct In-Person meetings twice each year to coordinate their efforts.

The July combined In-Person meeting of the National Coordinating Committee and the US TAG Teams was intended to be an "experiment" - to assess the feasibility and practicality of integrating the In-Person meetings of the two groups. Such integrated meetings would be conducted twice a year. The National Coordinating Committee would continue to have its regular monthly teleconference meetings.


2.2 Summary of Discussions Regarding Integrated In-Person Meetings

Russ Hewett opened the floor for discussion by stating that: (i) the present meeting is an "experiment" - to assess the feasibility of integrated In-Person meetings; and (ii) there are three issues on the table:

1. Is this a good idea? (i.e., having two such integrated meetings annually)
   
2. What are the issues that should be addressed in the meetings?
   
3. What are the desired outcomes of such meetings?

Jim Ohi stated that there are a lot of codes and standards-related meetings. We have already taken a good step towards integrating DOE, NHA and USFCC activities with establishment of the National Coordinating Committee. There is a lot of interest in harmonization. It would be a good idea to try to integrate the US TAG Team efforts and those of the National Coordinating Committee to make the best use of our time. Furthermore, the National Coordinating Committee is attempting to have four In-Person meetings annually. Having two of the meetings in conjunction with the US TAG Teams would provide the opportunity to focus on international issues, since national and international issues are inter-related. Jim cited the progress in the hydrogen fuel quality work with respect to integrated national and international participation.

Russ Hewett mentioned that the strategy in the current meeting (that would also hold for future meetings) is to put National Coordinating Committee-specific issues at the very beginning of the meeting. This would facilitate participation of persons and organizations whose interests are mostly North American-oriented.

Kelvin Hecht stated that, if there are to be integrated meetings, they should be scheduled on the basis of (and when) there are specific codes and standards issues that need to be addressed or decisions to be made, rather than having "regularly scheduled" meetings. Furthermore, the specific issues that are to be addressed should be clearly articulated so that those persons who need to participate would know about them.

Patrick Serfass pointed out that the meetings of the US TAG Teams and the National Coordinating Committee are "coordination meetings" - the actual codes and standards work is done in the meetings of the working groups. The real value of coordinating meetings is exchange of information.

Tony Androsky pointed out the issue of lack of strong OEM participation in coordinating committee meetings. He suggested that the key may be to have a tool (i.e., website) that industry can go to in order to get information and access to resources. Meetings would be necessary only when key issues arise.

With respect to the US TAG teams, Kelvin Hecht pointed out that a problem has been getting the participation of the TAGs other than those for ISO/TC197 and IEC/TC105. Granted, many persons serve on multiple TAGs, providing a measure of information exchange.

Russ Hewett raised the issue of who has responsibility for effecting or facilitating "coordination" among the (at least) eight US TAGs. In addition, it was mentioned that coordination requires systematic participation of the following Federal entities: DOE, DOT, DOC and EPA. Their participation has not been consistent.

Tom Joseph spoke regarding the need to differentiate, but not segregate national versus international standards. Global US companies will want global standards and safety requirements.

There was discussion regarding the need for a "coordinator" to:

• Coordinate the international TAGs
  
• Coordinate Federal government participation with the TAGs.

In addition, it was pointed out that the TAGs should work closely with the CDOs and SDOs and vice versa.

The issue of "what are we coordinating?" arose, especially since with respect to the TAGs, each is independent.

Bob Mauro gave his perspective regarding what should be coordinated. While each TAG can take care of its own business, the following coordination is relevant:

1. Coordinating with respect to the things that the TAGs have in common
   
2. Coordinating with the SDOs regarding what they are doing as it impacts US participation in international standards and regulations development
   
3. Coordinating with respect to where and how activities/standards development requirements work should be placed in the international arena

Bob mentioned further that the TAGs have an industry perspective. What needs "coordination" is problems that all the TAGs are facing and coordinating their efforts with the national SDOs.

Glenn Scheffler gave his perspective: The TAGs are autonomous but they are working on the right thing at the right time (e.g., hydrogen quality). With respect to coordination, coordination is needed regarding development of the strategy to be used to address an item and for getting issues on the table.

Glenn was questioning the need for "coordination", after the strategy has been developed. However, Glenn pointed out that it's important for one TAG -- when working on an issue -- to be cognizant of how what they are doing relates to the work of other TAGs. This is an example of "coordination".

Cited as areas for coordination were Hydrogen Sensors and Hydrogen Quality. Currently, both are "Japanese driven". All of the US TAGS should coordinate to identify US concerns and formulate US positions.

Also, it was pointed out that participation in coordination meetings (i.e., TAG team meetings) has been limited due to financial considerations - lack of funds for travel.

The lively discussion identified the "pros" and "cons" of having coordinating meetings in general and "integrated National Coordinating Committee/ US TAG team coordinating meetings in particular. There was general agreement that there is the need for coordination.

DOE, NREL, USFCC, NHA and others will get together to do the following:

1. Formulate a definition of what "coordination" entails
   
2. Formulate and implement a recommended strategy for effecting US TAG team/Federal Government/OEM coordination (that takes the "burden" off of USFCC)
   
3. Formulate a model for establishing the agenda for and conducting integrated National Coordinating Committee/ US TAG Team coordinating meetings

3.0 SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING NATIONAL MEETINGS/EVENTS
AND NATIONAL CODES AND STANDARDS DOCUMENTS IN
THE "COMMENTS" OR REVIEW STAGE

Kelvin Hecht reported on: (1) meetings relating to codes and standards development held in June; (2) meetings scheduled for July; and (3) codes and standards documents in the "Comments" or review period. His report is Attachment B to the Minutes.

With respect to documents in the review process, the Weights and Measures Division (WMD) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has produced a Draft Hydrogen Gas Meter Code. They generated the Draft for use as the basis for a standard to be adopted by US Weights and Measures jurisdictions for regulating hydrogen re-fueling equipment at commercial service stations and for fleet operations.

Draft Hydrogen Gas Meter Code (281Kb PDF)

In February 2005, WMD disseminated the Draft for review to all potential stakeholders, asking for their input by March 28th. However, the response back was sparse. Since WMD wants to make sure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to comment on the Draft, they extended the deadline to July 18, 2005.

WMD had projected September 2005 as the timeframe for convening a working group to review the Draft and begin the process that would lead to development of a hydrogen refueling equipment standard. However, because of lack of funding, the schedule will slip, probably into FY06. In spite of this, WMD plans to continue gathering input on the technical content via written correspondence and email.

US TAG Team and Coordinating Committee members and other stakeholders are invited not only to review the Draft but also to serve on the working group when it is established

In addition, the upcoming Materials and Components for the Hydrogen Economy Codes and Standards Workshop was highlighted. The workshop -- to be held August 29 - 30, 2005 in Augusta, GA -- will be conducted jointly by ASME and the DOE Savannah River National Laboratory. While the Workshop will be limited to 65 participants, Committee and TAG Team members were invited to participate.

Workshop Announcement (57Kb PDF)

During his presentation, Kelvin Hecht put on the table the coordination issues of: (i) US TAG and National Coordinating Committee members getting access to IEC and ISO documents in the "Comments" period; and (ii) coordination between the US ISO and IEC TAGs with. respect to:

• Are the IEC and ISO TAGs sharing comments
  
• Are the IEC and ISO TAGS in agreement regarding strategies
  
• Are the TAGS getting the perspectives of fuel cell and equipment producers and hydrogen producers in their deliberations

Committee members (and others) with an interest in providing comments can do so by contacting the cognizant TAG administrator.

The names of the administrators, as well as documents in the "Comments" phase can be obtained via the following website:
www.fuelcellstandards.com.



4.0 MISSION STATEMENT FOR NATIONAL COORDINATING
COMMITTEE

Since the National Coordinating Committee is the merging the efforts of three separate entities, the participants have agreed to creation of a Mission Statement for it. Susan Townsend (chairperson of the NHA Codes and Standards Committee) has the lead for generating a revised draft Mission Statement based on feedback from the membership after their review of the first draft. When the revised draft is completed, it will be disseminated to the membership as soon as possible. Jim Ohi suggested that when the revised draft is available, we should review it in light of the discussions at this meeting regarding the role of the National Coordinating Committee as it relates to international standards

Draft Mission Statement (81Kb PDF)



5.0 DISCUSSIONS DURING WORKING LUNCHEON

The working luncheon was "reserved" for CDOs and SDOs (other than ICC and NFPA) to give reports regarding their activities as they related to coordination. The reports from ICC and NFPA are documented in Section 6.0.

5.1 Report on ISO TC 220 (Cryogenic Gases) Activities

Since Tom Joseph (Air Products) would not be able to give the presentation regarding the activities of ISO TC 220 (Cryogenic Gases) - scheduled for Tuesday -- because of a previous commitment, he gave it during the Luncheon. The scope of ISO TC 220 includes liquid hydrogen.

Tom reported on seven ISO TC 220 standards. There is a major issue - a conflict with ISO TC 153 (Valves). ISO has passed a resolution for TC 220 to stop working on a cryogenic valve standard until the conflict with TC 153 is resolved.

The next meeting of TC 220 (i.e. Working Group 1) is scheduled for late November 2005 in Berlin, Germany.

ISO TC 220 Report (31Kb PDF)


5.2 SAE Activities

Ron Sims reported on the status of SAE standards development activities as of July 2005.

J2617 - Performance Testing of Fuel Cell Stacks: The balloting has been completed with four "disapprove" votes. It has been returned to the Working Group in order to address the respective issues raised.

J2572 - Hydrogen FCV Fuel Economy Measurement: This document has been further refined by its Working Group to include hybridized powertrain FCVs and utilize the SOC correction algorithm favored by ISO, and is now awaiting a summer ballot.

J2719, SAE Technical Information Report: Hydrogen Compositional Guideline: This report is now in its final draft form, and will be brought to the SAE FCSC Meeting on July 21st for committee approval for publication. The HQTF will also be meeting with JARI representatives to compare their respective compositional tables.

J2600 - Vehicle Refueling Coupling Device (published 2003): This document is presently being updated and harmonized by the Interface Working Group to ISO 17268. Provision for 700 bar refueling is also included.

J2601 - Refueling Interface Communication Protocol: The Interface Working Group has now resumed drafting of this document.

In addition, CSA America and SAE's Fuel Cell Committee have agreed to an informal cooperative agreement in which they will work collaboratively on the development of fuel cell-related, onboard-vehicle standards.



6:0 MODEL CODES: STATUS REPORTS/WHAT COMES NEXT

6.1 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

Carl Rivkin reported on NFPA activities.

The new edition of NFPA 52 (Vehicular Fuel Systems) went to a floor vote for approval during the NFPA's World Fire Safety Conference held in Las Vegas, NV in June 2005. One item in the document was brought up for floor action - i.e., removing the requirement for hydrogen odorization/gas detectors for fueling stations. The floor action was not approved. The issue will go to the NFPA Standards Council for final action. The Council was scheduled to meet on July 25th.

The Standards Council has received a proposal to consolidate all of the hydrogen safety requirements in its various codes and standards documents into a single document. The objectives in doing this would be to:

• Increase ease of use
  
• Facilitate harmonization of the safety requirements.

In addition, since the requirements in codes and standards documents are subject to revision and since new requirements will undoubtedly arise, consolidation would facilitate the process for making changes to existing requirements and formulating new ones as the hydrogen and fuel cell technologies evolve and as operating experience is gained. The proposal is for consolidating hydrogen safety requirements in NFPA 52, NFPA 55, NFPA 853, NFPA 30A, and NFPA 70 into a single document that would be entitled NFPA 2 (Hydrogen Technology).

Carl reported that they have received much input. In general, most respondents were in favor of consolidation. There are questions regarding how the documents would be consolidated. It is expected that the Standards Council will make a decision regarding consolidation at the July 25th meeting.

If the proposal is not accepted, Carl reported that NFPA will focus on the following:

1. Formulating more requirements to be incorporated into NFPA 52 and NFPA 55 (e.g., separation distances, venting requirements)
   
2. Formulation new requirements/updating requirements in NFPA 853 and NFPA 30A.
3. Carl reported that the next meeting of the NFPA Hydrogen Consulting Group will be a teleconference meeting scheduled for August 25th.

6.2 International Code Council (ICC)

Darren Meyers reported on ICC activities:

ICC Report (210Kb PDF)

Of special significance is that the ICC Ad Hoc Committee for Hydrogen Gas (AHC) will be completing its work at the conclusion of the 2004/2005 ICC Code Development Cycle. A Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry Panel on Codes (HFC-IPOC) will be established to replace it. While it will have its own scope of work, it will provide for the uninterrupted flow of work previously done by the AHC.



7.0 FUEL CELL VEHICLE STANDARDS

7.1 Harmonization of Standards Between SDOs (e.g. ISO/TC22 SC21 and SAE for Fuel Consumption)

Ron Sims, in his earlier presentation, and Jesse Schneider reminded everyone that SAE 2572 (Hydrogen FCV Fuel Economy Measurement) is being integrated into the work of ISO/TC 22 SC21. US consensus is being built on Annex C for fuel economy.


7.2 ISO/ TC 58 (Gas Cylinders) Harmonization

Norm Newhouse reported on ISO/TC58 activities. Efforts of TC58 and SAE (i.e., SAE J2579 - Recommended Practice for Hazardous Fluid Systems in Fuel Cell Vehicles)
should be harmonized. SAE needs more tank supplier involvement. According to Chris Sloane, from what they have seen, existing standards won't meet vehicle producers' safety requirements, since they are responsible for vehicle safety. Natural gas standards are not sufficient.

Norm expressed his belief that NGV2/HGV2 (Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle/Hydrogen Vehicle Fuel Containers) is a good document, with demonstrated safety, that is needed by the industry and should move forward to approval under the CSA-America secretariat. The OEMs believe that the requirements are too prescriptive. If the OEMs do not want to be bound by HGV2, Norm recommends that it should be stated in the document that it is not intended to apply to OEM that have an equivalent safety document.

Norm supported the concept of making HGV2 (or another standard) more performance-based and less design prescriptive. Norm recommended that if OEMs have specific requirements, they should be stated in writing for use by the TC. Norm proposed that SAE (i.e., J2579) and TC58 work together to draft a performance-based standard. HGV2 should not be held up in order to make improvements that cannot be identified in the near term.

In Norm's opinion, an SAE document should exist as a draft for a time - in order to gather data from actual operations, before it could be approved. Otherwise, OEMs might inadvertently set requirements they could not meet or that do not insure safety.

CSA America has established an informal cooperative agreement with SAE to facilitate development of standards that meet auto industry needs. The CSA America TAG has representatives from the automotive industry and SAE.

In addition, CSA America has requested input from the automotive industry on what revisions need to be made to the CSA America standards. CSA Standards are under continuous revision and all recommended changes are considered by means of a consensus process. CSA America is meeting with industry participants to determine what is needed to meet vehicle producer safety requirements. With regard to SAE's development of a standard to address the complete vehicle system, it is CSA America's understanding that they intend to include requirements for the tank. Since CSA America owns the intellectual property of the NGV2/HGV2 standards, this activity will need to be coordinated between CSA and SAE to ensure there is no copyright infringement.

With respect to the national codes and standards development template, Norm wanted to understand why CSA America has the lead for tanks, rather than SAE. The explanation was that SAE does have the lead for tanks for OEMs and CSA America for others.


7.3 OEM Involvement

Chris Sloane addressed the issue of codes and standards development and development needs from the perspective of an automotive producer operating in a global market looking at hydrogen and fuel cells. She addressed the issue based on her perception/concept of the level of maturity of the codes and standards - going from the most mature to the least:

1. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS): This applies to fuel cell vehicles. The SAE and ISO activities, when finalized, would be sufficient.
2. Leak Issues: If a vehicle is in a crash, it should not leak fuel and this should be true for hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles as well. No new standards are required. What needs to be done is to determine where to place hydrogen sensors.
3. Hydrogen Fuel Quality: The issue here is that emission levels are mandated, but performance is not.
4. Containment/Hydrogen Storage Vessels: From Chris's perspective this is the least mature of the standards efforts. Storage safety requirements may become a matter of law. NHTSA is looking into this. OEMs would encourage that this becomes law, when storage technology becomes mature.

1. It has to obtain a score above the minimum requirement
   on answers to five questions
2. Five countries must not only vote to approve it, but must also
   make a commitment to support it (including serving on the working group).

The general consensus in discussing the proposal was that the write-up for the proposal does not provide enough information for making an informed decision. There are two existing relevant standards:

• UL 2075 (Standard for Gas and Vapor Detectors and Sensors)
  
• IEC 61779 (Electrical Apparatus for the Detection and
  Measurement of Flammable Gases)

For example, while IEC 61779 is an IEC, rather than ISO standard, the proposal did not make the case that the proposed work could not be done by modifying IEC 61779 and/or UL 2075.

Balloting on the NWIP is to be completed by August 18, 2005.

The proposal will be discussed further at the August teleconference meeting of the National Coordinating Committee scheduled for Wednesday, August 3rd.



18.0 WRAP-UP DISCUSSION

During Wrap-up, the following issues were raised for future discussion:

1. With respect to integrated National Coordination Committee/US TAG Team "coordination", should hydrogen/fuel cell transportation applications be included?
2. What can be done to achieve better participation of the various US TAG teams in efforts to coordinate their activities?
   
3. What can be done to achieve better participation of the various cognizant Federal agencies in coordination efforts with the TAG teams?
4. Would the concept of "integrated National Coordinating Committee/US TAG team coordinating meetings work better if they were "mandated from on high"? (for example, should NREL have the role - agreed to by all parties - for setting up timely coordination meetings and handling the logistics associated with them?)
   
5. Coordination meetings should be issue-focused, rather than meetings conducted on a "regularly scheduled" basis.